I move— That the Bill be now read a third time.

I do not propose to take up much of the time of the House. We debated this measure fully in the second reading and again in the Committee Stage. The machinery has been created here and the hon. the Minister will realize that there is still a lingering doubt in the minds of many hon. members on this side of the House in regard to the operation of the powers granted to the Minister under this Bill. I think it can be fairly said that we will keep an entirely open mind in the matter. We have made our position plain. We do not want the Minister needlessly to tresspass on what the municipalities regard as their own particular sphere of civic government. We are entirely with him in our desire to see slums cleared up and to see decent homes erected on that land in the place of the slums. In other words, we do not want land to be left derelict because there was a slum on it previously. We want to see our towns developed by proper planning and our people, even of the lower income groups, properly housed. I want to say in passing that I noticed with particular interest the remarks of the hon. the Minister in regard to sending a commission overseas to study the various types of building construction. I think that is a very important development and I hope that in time we will enjoy the benefits of that investigation and that it may be possible for us to provide housing more within the means of the lower income groups. The machinery is there. We hope the Minister will use it wisely. He will be watched most keenly by people who are jealous of their powers, and I hope we will never have cause to reproach the Minister for the fact that we listened to his special pleas and supported him and gave him the powers he asked for.

I wish to thank hon. members for the manner in which the Bill has been received, and I should like to give the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) the assurance that I shall apply it with the greatest consideration and after consultation with the local authorities. But I do hope that every hon. member in this House will henceforth help us to ensure the co-operation of city councils throughout the country.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last night, I had reacted to the remarks of certain hon. members opposite, but I want to leave it there. This legislation clearly reflects the demands made by the times in which we live and how the hon. the Minister of Defence intends handling the existing situation. It is customary when planning military action to make a systematic appreciation of the situation. Such an appreciation must firstly give a clear idea of the objectives at which the action is aimed, after which the various factors which can influence the attainment of that objective must be investigated before consideration is given to the various plans of action.

The object of the action taken by the Minister and this side of the House can be summarized easily enough. It stems from the desire to maintain and to protect our traditional way of life in South Africa against all possible attacks from beyond our borders or internally. To make that possible, we on this side believe that it is a prerequisite that the authority of the Whites should for all time be preserved in the White area of the country. Our further object is energetically and with every means at our disposal to ward off any attacks which may be aimed at changing or undermining that situation. In analysing whether we are faced with any threat from beyond our borders, there is certain evidence to which I should like to refer very briefly. My first quotation is what the hon. the Prime Minister stated in 1962, as reported in the Cape Argus, when he said the following—

Then we have the evidence of a Basuto chief, who made the following statement from Ghana, as reported in Dagbreek of 13 January 1963—

Then I want to give the following quotation—

But overseas it is also surmised that South Africa may be threatened, and I quote here what the British newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, had to say in that regard—

There is therefore no doubt at all that there exists a threat of aggression from beyond our borders, and if we consider for a moment how military forces are being built up in the African countries, one can only come to the conclusion that the forces being built up and the military equipment being assembled will be used for purposes of aggression. I wish to refer briefly to a few of the military forces in Africa, and I begin with Ghana. They ordered 45 aircraft including 14 Ilyushin 11-18s from Russia: in 1959 they established a training school in Accra, and their air force instructors consist of officers from Israel and India. Other pilots are at the moment being trained in Russia. In the meantime they received three AN-12s from Russia as a present, and they intend establishing two jet fighter-bomber squadrons.

What is the position in Ethiopia? It is perhaps ironical, but I will not refer to that now. Ethiopia at the moment has an air force of more than 4,500 officers and men. They have trained instructors from Sweden and the U.S.A. Their air force is mainly equipped with Swedish aircraft of the S.A.A.B. type; it includes 66 S.A.A.B. 17A attack bombers. Their fleet is being trained by Norwegian officers. Guinea is busy building up an air force with the assistance of the Soviet bloc. They were recently promised 25 Mig-17 Russian fighters as a present. Egypt is of course by far the best armed country. Two years ago their fleet consisted of 6,000 officers and ratings. They have, inter alia, two former Russian torpedo chasers, two British Z Class torpedo chasers, six frigates, nine former Russian submarines, and so I could continue to mention a whole series. Their air force is becoming impressive. They have a complete wing of 11-28 Russian bombers. They have two wings of Mig-15 and Mig-17 Russian fighters and figher-bombers. Since 1961 they have been building their own jet aircraft to replace the Russian Yak-11 as training machines. Then I have a report here which appeared recently in the Star of 9 April 1963—

The argument is sometimes advanced that although they may have the weapons, and although these countries may perhaps be able to acquire the necessary equipment, they do not have the necessary manpower. In this regard I just want to remind the House of what the Friend stated in 1951—

That is enough to indicate that arms are being built up in Africa and that there is a great manpower potential to use those weapons. I need only refer in passing to the internal threat. During the last few weeks we have had debates in this House in which the internal situation was put before us very clearly. There is no difference of opinion in regard to that threat between hon. members opposite and this side of the House.

I therefore feel that this legislation introduced by the hon. the Minister of Defence for building up our defence against that background and in this situation should be welcomed from all sides. But I want to revert to a more specific reference to the Bill. I want to refer to Clauses 1, 5, 6, 10 and 11, which mainly deal with the Air Commandos. I immediately want to thank the Minister of Defence, on behalf of the organizations which for years have pressed for this and on behalf of the persons who have expressed their thoughts in this regard, for the fact that he has seen his way clear to approve in principle of Air Commandos for South Africa. I feel that this is a great step forward and that there we will make available for defence purposes a great hitherto untapped potential. The hon. the Minister said in his speech that these Air Commandos will be available on demand to support the Commandos or the Active Citizen Force. I want to plead with the Minister to consider still having these Air Commandos under the command of the Air Chief of Staff, and that the Air Chief of Staff will still be the channel through which these Air Commandos will be controlled. I know that there are arguments in favour of the suggestion that they should be put under the Army’s Chief of Staff, that they will become the eyes and ears of the A.C.F. and the Commandos, but when we come to the organizational problems connected with the building up of air squadrons—it is true that they are Air Commandos, but to a large extent they will still be air squadrons—then I feel that we should make the fullest use not only of the instructors in our Air Force but of the whole organizational structure of the Air Force, and then they can play their role just as well, and in my humble opinion perhaps even better, if they are under the command of the Air Chief of Staff. Mr. Speaker, there is a great potential which can be used in the form of Air Commandos. I am thinking of the pilots and the aircraft which will be made available. At the moment there is in South Africa a total of 1,667 pilots who may possibly take part in the activities of an Air Commando, which total includes 176 learner pilots, 1,162 private pilots, and 229 more experienced commercial pilots and approximately 100 instructors. The number of private aircraft on the South African register is at the moment between 700 and 800, and there is a total of 52 training organizations and flying clubs. This indispensable reserve, which may become of incalculable value, will now be brought into the picture in safeguarding our country, and we are very grateful to the hon. the Minister for that. Mr. Speaker, to the uninitiated the task and the function of the Air Commandos may not be quite clear initially and I therefore should like briefly to refer, in order to supplement what I said last night, to a few aspects of the activities of the Air Commandos. Civilian pilots, in their own sphere, are very experienced people who as a group, viewed from the point of view of civilian aviation, know the country better, I think, than any other group. In the areas with which they are acquainted they will be able to make use of roads or any level strip of ground. They are usually able to operate on terrain where military aircraft are quite ineffective or where their scope is rather restricted.

I should like to refer to a few of the possible uses to which the Air Commandos may be put. Firstly there is reconnaissance, where they will serve as the eyes of the Army units, where they can do photographic work and where a man with an ordinary camera, a Polaroid camera, can do excellent photographic work which can be interpreted later in regard to a situation on the ground, and where they can also do limited patrol work. Particularly when we establish border posts they can do limited patrol work along our borders, and to a lesser extent also along our coastline. In regard to transport they can perform a very important function, where roads are cut off by saboteurs, through the blowing up of bridges. We saw an example of that when the Natal South Coast was cut off by the extraordinarily heavy rains. We saw how, by means of light aircraft, which simply landed in the roads, a large number of people were able to be fed for a long time until the bridges could be repaired. We think of the transport of key personnel, of officers who have to get from one place to another quickly to inspect inaccessible terrain where a military aircraft cannot land. We think of the transport of important and lightweight strategic materials, such as ammunition, police reinforcements, rations, etc. From a medical point of view, they can perform equally important functions, such as the transport of doctors and nurses to places which are otherwise inaccessible, or which can be reached only by means of long detours or bad roads. We think of the transport of blood plasma, medical supplies, the picking up of wounded men, emergency flights, etc. In regard to communications, when telegraph lines are cut these aircraft can act as radio relay stations. I also wish to express my special thanks for the intention of equipping them with the radio equipment which in terms of this Bill will be made available to them. In Kenya a system was used of painting numbers on the roofs of outlying farms, which were noted on the maps in the police stations, and which facilitated the recognition of such a farm or area from the air. By means of prearranged signals and codes, they can pick up messages from the ground when other communications, even radio communications, do not exist. In this case a cheap transportable radio with a very limited range may be used. I understand that Japan manufactures a radio set of this type at a price of approximately R60. Although its range is only a few miles, five or six miles, it may be of inestimable value to these aircraft to make use of these small radio sets. These Air Commandos may be linked up with the existing search and rescue service. Finally, in regard to training, we are training a number of people here up to a much higher standard. They receive night flying training and instrument flying training; they receive operational training which in the normal course of events they would not receive, and they are therefore being trained also as a potential for supplementing our Air Force—here I am thinking particularly of the learner pilots and the younger men, because they have already received basic training and they have therefore already reached the stage where they can be taken over by our Air Force and given advanced training.

In conclusion, I wish to refer to a matter which is closely connected with our Air Commandos. I feel that we have reached a stage where we should think of establishing our own aircraft industry in South Africa. If Egypt can build its own jet aircraft and make use of technicians from overseas to build its own jet engines and aircraft, then I feel that an air-craft manufacturing industry in South Africa, particularly concentrated on a type of aircraft which will be suitable for defence purposes as well as for civilian use, should receive our attention at this stage.

I wish to conclude by once again thanking the Minister for this Bill, and particularly for the establishment of Air Commandos. I want to express my conviction that this will prove to be of inestimable value to our country, and I want to wish the Minister and his Department every success with further developments in this direction.

I would like to confine my remarks to certain clauses of this amendment Bill but before I do so I want to say that it is encouraging to note that when we on this side of the House plant the seed, then eventually it inevitably germinates within the Government benches. [Interjection.] I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I am extremely glad to see that at least in regard to three provisions of this Bill, he and his Department have at long last seen the light and that they have accepted things that we have fought for since 1957. We are glad to see that he has at last included those proposals in this Bill to make our Defence Force far more efficient and effective than they could possibly have been otherwise. In the first instance I refer to the inclusion of Clause 26 which provides for compulsory immunization and the acceptance of prophylactic treatment by members of the Defence Force. I think the inclusion of this provision indicates quite clearly the general acceptance by the public of the idea of immunization and the importance of preventive medicine. Although certain fears have been expressed in the course of this debate as to whether or not these provisions will be able to be applied by medical officers in the Defence Force, I want to assure my hon. friend, the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) that the Army has its ways, and I have no fears whatsoever that it will be effectively applied by the medical men of the Republic’s Defence Forces. In any event I may say to my hon. friend that I have had the personal experience of having to accept immunization. I cannot recall any case where a doctor in the Defence Forces ever personally put the needle into any particular soldier. As far as I recall it is usually left to the medical staff sergeant or sergeants to do that kind of work, and if any member has any doubt as to whether or not he should allow himself to be immunized, that issue is so easily settled by the sergeant in charge. But in any event this provision is applied in every other civilized country. It is an acknowledgment of the advance that medical science has made in protecting the health of the men who serve in the armed forces. We therefore welcome the inclusion of this provision. Then I want to say a few words in regard to the establishment of a manpower board which is provided for in Clause 13. Sir, that was proposed as long ago as 1957 when the original Select Committee sat on the Defence Bill, but the Government of the day had doubts about the matter. The Minister then proceeded to appoint a manpower board without any statutory recognition as far as the Defence Act is concerned. I am very glad to see that provision is now being made for the establishment of a manpower board, and I will have a little more to say about it in a moment. Then, Sir, on behalf of this side of the House I accept the expressions of appreciation which have come from hon. members on the Government benches, particularly the hon. member for Bethal-Middelburg (Mr. J. W. Rall) with regard to the provision which is being made here for the establishment of Air Commandos. The Minister knows that we on this side of the House have put forward the proposal over many years. It was proposed, if I recall correctly, even before the appointment of the Select Committee which sat on the Defence Bill of 1957. I particularly am very pleased to see that the Minister has at last been enabled, by the force of circumstances, to see the light and the worthiness of the proposals that we have been making over a large number of years, and we on these benches are particularly glad to see the inclusion of these provisions in Clauses 1, 5, 10 and 11 of the Bill. [Interjection.] I hope the hon. the Minister does not mind my drawing his attention to the fact that the constructive proposals contained in the Bill all emanated originally from this side of the House.

Then I want to turn for one moment to Clause 4 and reply to certain observations made by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt). Here again we have a case of delayed thinking. When we were dealing with the provisions of another measure, which are being duplicated in Clause 4 as far as apprentices are concerned, I had cause to point out to the Minister concerned that there was discrimination against those men who are called up for training under the ballot system, and that it was palpably unfair that because they were called upon by way of ballot, with no alternative, to serve in the forces, their future opportunities should be prejudiced. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) on that occasion disagreed with me and supported his Minister, but we have had a case of delayed germination here. The seed that was planted in the minds of hon. members opposite by this side has at last decided to germinate, and it pleased me immensely yesterday to hear the hon. member for Pretoria (West) pleading for the very thing for which I pleaded in this House last week and which he himself opposed at the time. He has now seen the merit of my argument, and may I say to the Minister that I support the hon. member for Pretoria (West) in the plea that he made to the Minister that these men who are called up to serve in our forces under the ballot system should not be prejudiced in their income and their future progress by reason of the fact that they are called up for training in our Defence Forces. I do not want to repeat all the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) but I hope that the Minister will heed them and that he will see what can be done in order to ensure that these men are not prejudiced in any way.

Turning to Clause 15, this provision is an extension of the powers which the Minister sought in the amending legislation of 1961. Sir, you will recall when that legislation was discussed in the House, it was a bone of political contention between this party and the more leftist elements who were in the House at that time, namely the Progressive Party. The Minister will recall that we supported him wholeheartedly in that Bill, and we did so for very good reasons. We supported him because we got certain assurances from him at that time. One of those assurances was that if it became necessary because of the urgency of the situation to call out either the Citizen Force, the Commandos or the Reserve for immediate action in any area, he would ensure that there would be no haphazard selection of men from the various units; that he would ensure that they were well-trained, disciplined soldiers, strictly controlled and subject to military discipline. Those were the hon. the Minister’s words; he gave the assurance that these units who would be called up to assist in time of internal disorder on the civilian plane would be well-trained and disciplined soldiers, strictly controlled, and that they would be called up for a period not exceeding four days without a mobilization order. Now, what have we got? The Minister is taking precisely the same powers, with these two differences, that these men will be called up for a 24-hour period in any magisterial district to assist the South African Police on an order of the magistrate, but this will only apply to men who serve in the Commandos and men who serve in the Citizen Force. I want to point out to the Minister that if you are going to use men to support the South African Police at a time of internal disorder, whether it be at Koppies in the Free State or whether it be at Zwartruggens in the Transvaal, it is necessary more than ever to ensure that they are well-trained and disciplined men. We cannot expect the police to have to rely at a time of strain on the assistance of men who are undisciplined and not fully trained. That might well happen under this proposal with the restrictions which apply here, namely that this shall apply only to the Commandos and the Citizen Force. When trouble breaks out it may well happen that rookies are called out to assist them, men who are not properly disciplined, men without experience, men who are not subject to military law and who do not have a full understanding of military law. I submit to the hon. the Minister that that is unsatisfactory, and I would ask him to do what he did in 1961. There the Minister may call out not only the Citizen Force and the Commandos but also members of the Reserve. Sir, why did he include members of the Reserve at that time? Because he recognized that a reservist was a trained man, a man with a sense of responsibility. The reservists in South Africa to-day, in most cases, are disciplined and trained men, better disciplined and better trained than members of the Commandos. They are men who have certainly had far more military training than members of the Commandos. In any case, if the call-up is to be confined to country areas and districts these reservists are known to the police and to the local magistrate. They know when the local boy has finished his training and returned home. I want to ask the Minister to reconsider this matter because we propose to move an appropriate amendment in the Committee Stage. We want to ensure that when military men are used for police duties under these circumstances they will at least be trained men and that they are disciplined. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) said that he heard somewhere that this point was going to be raised in the House; I do not know where he heard it. He says that it is a ridiculous proposition because if you are going to call out the Reserve, then you are going to call out all men between the ages of 17 and 65.

No, I did not say that.

The hon. member did mention the National Reserve, which embraces all men between the ages of 17 and 65. What argument does the hon. member advance? He says that that is a dangerous proposition because in the Reserve there may be potential saboteurs, men who could not be relied on. The hon. gentleman must surely know, if he knows the Defence Act at all, that the Reserve Force is classified; we have the National Reserve Force, the Permanent Force, and Active Citizen Force. My suggestion to the hon. the Minister is that he should call out members of the Active Citizen Force Reserve. I am not saying the whole National Reserve, but members of the Active Citizen Force Reserve. In that case he will be absolutely sure that they are men who are accustomed to discipline, men who can exercise proper judgment and men who can follow instructions. I hope the hon. the Minister will consider this suggestion.

I now want to refer to the Manpower Board. I should like to have some clarity from the Minister in regard to the functions of this board. According to the Bill it has wide powers. The Act says that we shall draw 10,000 men into the armed forces to-day on the ballot principle. We have accepted the ballot system because under that system there is an equal opportunity for all those men who register in a particular year to serve in the forces. What I want to avoid at all costs is the old attitude that did exist that those men who came forward were doing their duty and that those who stayed at home had no sense of responsibility. I think we must prevent any man from thinking that he can use his occupation as an escape route from military service. There is no sphere in the technical field where the Defence Force does not require men with technical knowledge, particularly to-day with the highly scientific arms that are being used. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that when this board is established very careful thought be given to the way in which exemptions will be granted. Let me put it this way: Supposing out of the 25,000 to 30,000 names that go into the ballot box annually 3,000 are apprentices and that the Minister needs apprentices. Who is going to decide whose names will go into the box and whose names will not? All the 3,000 apprentices are not going to be drawn; some are going to be escapees from the ballot. Who is going to determine who is going to escape and who not? The Manpower Board or the ballot box?

The ballot box.

That is my difficulty, Sir. On the other hand there may be certain individuals in certain specialized fields whom the Manpower Board consider are necessary in the industrial sphere which is as much part of the Defence Force as the Army itself. Who is going to determine? And I would ask the Minister to give very careful thought to this aspect. I think we should avoid at all costs the impression being created in the minds of the public that the Manpower Board can be used as an escape route from military service. I would ask the Minister to give serious consideration to that aspect. Everybody should feel that they did have the opportunity of playing their part in the defence of their country on an equal basis irrespective of their occupation.

I now come to the kernel of the Bill namely Clause 2. The hon. member for Bethal-Middelburg (Mr. J. W. Rall) quite rightly said that when changes of this nature were made to a Defence Act they must have been based upon some military appreciation of the situation on the part of the Minister. When the Minister sought the nine-month training period he outlined the possible dangers which South Africa might have to face in a troubled world, particularly in regard to Africa. In other words, Sir, the military appreciation which the Minister had at that time was to build up our defence forces in case of possible aggression from outside. There was no talk at all at that time about possible internal disorder and that that was the reason why the period should be extended to nine months. The emphasis was placed on possible aggression from outside. There was no thought at the time that we were putting thousands of men into the Army in order to suppress internal disorder. I want to emphasize that, Sir. What are we doing to-day? This is an important and far-reaching departure from the Defence Act as it has stood on the Statute Book for more than half a century. Let me explain why. It has been traditional, I think, since 1912 when the original Defence Act was introduced, that the Permanent Force as such could be used to do police duty and that it was a subsidiary arm of the police to maintain internal order which is the prime function of the police. That provision has never been altered. That principle was accepted in 1957 by a Select Committee which was considering a Bill to amend the Defence Act. Now the Minister goes further; he extends that principle to the Active Citizen Force and to the Commandos. Yet our Defence Act lays down specifically, under three specific chapters, the manner in which the various arms of the forces should serve and the manner in which they shall be trained. The manner in which they shall be trained and the manner in which they shall serve differs in the case of the Permanent Force, the Active Citizen Force, the Commandos and the Reserves. We are supporting this provision because we recognize the situation in South Africa; we recognize the possible difficulties that may confront us; we recognize the situation not only in our own country but in Africa. This House must accept that the entire emphasis has changed; the emphasis has changed from the external aspect to the internal aspect. I think that should be recognized.

You cannot be more wrong than you are now.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking at the Bill as it has been presented to us. I do not want to go into all the clauses. But the Minister knows that in the past there was no provision for any civilian serving in the Active Citizen Force to be used on police duty, other than the change effected by the hon. the Minister in 1961 when that was provided for in the case of emergency and that did not apply to either the Commandos or the Reserves.

How can you argue that the emphasis has been changed?

Of course it has been changed. Before the Active Citizen Force or the Reserves or the Commandos could be called out certain procedures had to be followed. We are not dealing only with Clause 1 but with Clause 17 as well which in fact provides that the men serving at present in the Permanent Force, the Citizen Force and the Commandos are in a permanent state of mobilization, that they can be called out at any time at the Minister’s behest. As the Minister knows, there can be no mobilization unless certain procedures are followed as laid down in Chapter 10 of the Defence Act. But in terms of this provision the men who are in training are in a permanent state of mobilization by order of the Minister. That is why I say that these provisions appear to indicate a change in our defence structure, that greater accent is placed on the internal aspect as a whole than on the external aspect.

That is better.

I am putting it in its right perspective. I am glad to see that the Minister agrees with me on that aspect, and I think that should be recognized outside as well.

Mr. Speaker, I have no fears whatsoever in regard to the use of any member of the Permanent Force for police duties. They are men who have been subject to life-long discipline; men who have had life-long training. I think everybody will agree with that. But then we come to the Active Citizen Force. I do not think anybody can have any objection to a man from the Active Citizen Force being used, provided, of course, that he has had proper training and that he has been subject to proper discipline, as the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has pointed out.

No ordinary Active Citizen Force man will be used for these duties bar those trained as police.

I am dealing with the clause as it reads. For the Minister’s information is says quite clearly “on such police duties as may be prescribed”. I am dealing with the Bill as it is before me and with the statement by the Minister when he introduced the Bill. He certainly did not give any indication that only certain sections of the A.C.F. or the Commandos, for that matter, would be used under certain circumstances.

Then I come to the Commandos. They have always been the backbone of our internal security. I want to put it to the Minister that until fairly recently, until the passing of the 1961 legislation, the Commandos consisted practically entirely of volunteers and that those volunteers were not under trained officers; in most cases their officers had not had any military training, except for some course or other which they may have taken at Voortrekkerhoogte. I do not know what the situation is to-day. I believe that men are coming into the Commandos who have past military experience. I think it was the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) who said that a large number of the members of the Commandos suffered from a sense of frustration and he was quite right, Sir. They want to have proper training; they want to have military training and they want to have discipline. The Minister only made them subject to the Military Disciplinary Code in 1961 which is less than two years ago. Before that there was no compulsory training. They attended if they wanted to and they did not attend if they did not want to. Their officers could not get proper platoons together for a shoot over a week-end. I want to say to the Minister that if he is going to use Commandos on police duty under these conditions it will be his responsibility to see to it that these men get adequate and proper training as far as it is possible to give it to them. If it is not possible to give it to individual members of the Commando, then I want to say to the Minister that he should take steps to ensure that the officers at least get necessary and adequate training so that they in turn can pass it on to the members under their respective command. I want to ask the Minister to give very serious consideration to that aspect. Throughout this debate the emphasis has been on responsibility, and that being the case I say it is necessary that we ensure that the men who are going to be charged with those duties have had the necessary training and that they act in a sense of responsibility when they are called upon, in the interests of the public.

I do not wish to reply to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, except to say that I am sorry he tried to catch a couple of political flies at the commencement of his speech. I regard this debate as much too serious for us to catch political flies off one another. I wish to associate myself with what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) said last night, and which placed the debate on a very high level. This legislation, Sir, is the match of the General Law Amendment Act passed by this House last week under great publicity in the Press and with a great degree of unanimity. That General Law Amendment Act was passed to equip the police so as to ensure and promote internal security. This legislation aims at equipping the Defence Force in the same way for the task of the maintenance of internal security. What is more, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is absolutely necessary for the co-ordination of the two forces for this purpose. The four principles put to us by the Minister, viz. to confer police powers upon the Citizen Force and the Commandos: to place members of the Citizen Force and Commandos of a district under the control of the police in specified circumstances; the establishment of the Air Commandos and the establishment of a manpower board—I do not wish to dwell upon those. I wish to say this merely: The hon. member who has just resumed his seat has said that there can be no doubt about the training of the Citizen Force and members of the Permanent Force for this purpose, but he expressed his misgivings about members of the Commandos. I should like to say this to him: In the past our Commandos were regarded as the backbone for the maintenance of internal security as regards the Defence Force. If they were good for this task in the past, then I think they will also be good for the task in the future, and that his misgivings are unfounded.

I do not wish to read more into the Act than is provided for therein, as the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has done. He even went so far as to say that the emphasis is now being shifted from external defence to internal security. I think his submission is completely exaggerated. However, I should like to associate myself with the submission made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) last night. I should like to read to the House what he said, that the United Party last year gave their assistance in the allocation of large funds for defence. Then he made this statement, that the Defence Force should not be armed with a view to internal defence only, but also with a view to external warfare. I wish to associate myself with that statement. The task of external warfare against foreign forces should not be underestimated, as the hon. member for Turffontein has done, who suggested that it is already being done in this Bill. In this connection I should like to say at once that I think we should be properly equipped with the proper weapons. We should not be equipped for internal disturbances only. I think that our internal manufacture of arms possibly may be focused too much on small arms. I am not too well informed in this regard, and accordingly I cannot elaborate upon that. But in this connection I should like to refer to the attitude of Mr. Harold Wilson, the leader of the Labour Party in Great Britain. In view of conditions in Africa and in the world, I think all of us should take note of what is said in that country, and of the words of Mr. Harold Wilson who may possibly become the Prime Minister of Great Britain. I am assuming that our hon. Minister is also taking those facts into account. That brings me to the ideal I wish to express here this afternoon, and that is that South Africa should be self-supporting and independent as regards its armaments. Some weeks ago I read a report in the Press that the firm manufacturing the Buccaneer aircraft are even considering, in view of the attitude of Mr. Harold Wilson, the transfer of their factory to South Africa or to other places. If that is so, that they are considering this, I should like to point out that there are two good reasons for their consideration. The first is that the Labour Party by their attitude is giving South Africa a slap in the face, and secondly that they are driving away a very good client of Great Britain. As regards the armaments industry, they are about to rob that armaments industry of a good client through the unbalanced attitude they are adopting. That is one of the considerations that factory is taking into consideration, of course. Another consideration they have regard to is that under a Labour Government there may be the possible nationalization of the armaments industry. In view of these two facts, that a good client is being slapped in the face, and the possibility of the nationalization of that armaments industry, has the time not arrived, as this wish has already been expressed on the part of the industry overseas, that our Government should do all in its power to attract that industry to South Africa? The hon. member for Bethal-Middelburg (Mr. J. W. Rall) has expressed the wish that we should establish an aircraft industry in South Africa. I wish to go much further than that, and say that our entire armaments industry should be expanded much more so that we may be absolutely independent and self-supporting. [Interjections.] I know there will be people who will always adopt that reckless attitude, but this is a very serious matter to me. I think every White man in South Africa should regard this matter in a very serious light. There is the point of view in South Africa, as regards defence matters, that we are situated on a strategic point between the East and the West. There are many who are folding their arms and saying that the East will not permit the West to take us, and the West will not permit the East to take us, and therefore we need not do anything. I wish to oppose that attitude. I think it is an unrealistic attitude. It is not an attitude that takes account of realities. What I am going to say now is a very controversial statement, but I want to make it nevertheless: It is clear to me that at the present time Russia is not prepared to risk being involved in a war against the West in Africa, or to be involved in a war against America about strategic points. Russia with cold feet abandoned the strategic point Cuba to the West. She was not prepared to become involved in a war with America on Cuba which was of exceptional strategic importance to her. Cuba is sitting on the threshold of her greatest enemy, America, but Russia was not prepared to wage war on account of that strategic point. She is equally unwilling to wage a war on account of Africa, and we say that in the case of the Congo. As that is so, I think it is very unrealistic to be apathetic and to say that because we are a strategic point, the East will not permit the West, and the West will not permit the East, to take us. I should like to point out that as regards this matter, the West virtually are supreme in Africa. And the West are in the grip of UNO and UNO is in the grip of the Afro-Asian countries. We know that as regards the Afro-Asian group, their attitude is that no White state should be tolerated on the continent of Africa. As that is their attitude, it is so much more necessary that we should not sit with folded arms, but that we should make our armaments industry absolutely independent and self-supporting. And the world should know that, and should see it. I know the hon. the Minister is doing his best in this respect, but I feel that emphasis should be laid upon it.

This legislation we are dealing with now is aimed at gearing our Defence Force to our internal security. I merely wish to warn that we should not over-emphasize internal security. The hon. member for Turffontein has already said we are doing so. We have to guard against that. I feel that we shall be able to combat the great evils that are awaiting us as regards our internal security, and that we should equip ourselves to be able to do the same in the case of danger emanating from foreign countries.

When I decided to take part in this debate I did not intend to discuss the matter of defence equipment in any way. But the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) and the hon. member for Bethal-Middelburg (Mr. J. W. Rall) raised the question of manufacturing our own equipment. It seems to me that there is a limit to what we as a small nation can do. I am not interested in what Mr. Harold Wilson said in Trafalgar Square. I could say quite a lot about Mr. Harold Wilson but when I speak about him I should like to go back to the country I came from and tell him there; I do not want to shoot at him from here. To my mind it is quite absurd for South Africa to speak about our own arms factory to manufacture aircraft, to give us modern weapons—and all modern weapons are out of date in five years—when we cannot manufacture a South African motorcar. We are really talking in the clouds when we speak about manufacturing our own equipment.

You are really a wet blanket.

The hon. member from Heilbron should then tell us what the attitude of Russia is going to be? I am not taking part in this debate to discuss foreign affairs. Surely this is a matter we should discuss with the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is not fair to throw this responsibility on the shoulders of the Minister of Defence. Hon. members will remember that for many years we on this side of the House have complained that the fault in South Africa has been that we had an Al, vigorous, often offensive foreign policy and a C3 Defence Force to back it up. That has been our trouble. I see some hope for the future with this new Minister. I think he is trying, he is doing his best to get people in this country, especially the White people and the Coloured people (I am glad he is including the Coloured people) to work together to build up a Defence Force. Mr. Speaker, when we suggested some years ago that the Government should revitalize the old Cape Corps, we were howled down by the other side. When we made the most obvious suggestion that the seamen of South Africa should be welcomed in the Navy, as they are in all other civilized countries, to man the little ships because city men man the big ships, the cruisers and the battleships, we were told “You want to put Coloured men in the Navy”. Of course we do. They are seamen and the obvious people to go into the Navy and our naval reserve are the seamen, the Coloured men of the Cape Peninsula. I think that is the next step, and I gathered from the speech of the hon. Minister that he is considering that.

I do not want to talk about equipment and high politics. I want to get down to bedrock. Much more important than equipment in any Army, in any fighting force or the police, are the men. I want to talk about the men, how we train the men, where we get the men and what we do for them. To do that I should like to concentrate on Clause 3 of the Bill which amends Section 4 of the Act and Clause 13 of the Bill which establishes the Manpower Board; and together with them naturally one should read Section 17 of the Act dealing with our Active Citizen Force.

Our system of training to-day is to ballot for young men to enter the forces for their preliminary course of training. They have nine months’ intensive training, and after that two periods of three weeks each. At the end of that time and during their subsequent periods of training they have the usual compulsory parades. They are then drafted to an Active Citizen Force regiment. And we have some very good regiments in the Transvaal, the Transvaal Scottish, the Wit Rifles, first-class regiments with great traditions, the I.L.H. established over 60 years ago, which has a wonderful record. I am very proud of those regiments, as all cities in South Africa are proud of their regiments, and as all country areas are proud of their Commandos.

Mr. Speaker, I come first of all to Clause 3 of the Bill. In Clause 3 we make it perfectly clear to employers what the limit of their responsibility is. As far as I am concerned, I should like to extend the limits of their responsibilities. In the original Act we asked a great deal of employers. When we sat on the commission which drafted this Act, we asked a great deal of employers. But I appreciate the hon. Minister’s difficulties. I can see that some employers must find it very difficult indeed to give their men the leave required if several men have been balloted, and so on. I accept that responsibility for those men who are balloted, and I will be prepared to accept Clause 3 with perhaps a minor amendment. But the hon. Minister knows that the organization of our Defence Force in the past, and traditionally, has been to have a permanent force which becomes a training cadre and an Active Citizen Force which is our striking force. That is the organization of our Defence Force. Perhaps it would not be out of place, Mr. Speaker, here, to pay a tribute to the manner in which that training cadre responded to the demand in 1939 and 1940. It was a magnificent performance, and I am glad to see that some of the officers who were responsible for that great work are to-day in our Permanent Force. Now when these men are drafted to the Active Citizen Force, our main force, what is the most important consideration, the most important part of that organization? The officers. The officers of your Active Citizen Force are regarded as the most important men in our whole Defence Force. But to become an officer in our Active Citizen Force a man has to be prepared to volunteer for service after his three or four years compulsory service, for six years. Six years if he is good enough to be accepted. Now I am going to speak of the officers and the warrant officers and perhaps the senior sergeants as well. How are these men chosen? What manner of men are they? I want to read from the Act. The Act defines the men that are selected for this Active Citizen Force of ours, the officers. I am quoting from Section 17—

That is a very high demand. As I have said in a previous debate, we are asking for the crême de la crême of South African manhood. Those are the men who are going to lead our Active Citizen Force. To get those men we have to be on good terms with the employers. The hon. Minister knows what I am coming to, because I have had a little correspondence with him. To get those men, the employers must assist us; they must be prepared to say “We will give these men reasonable conditions of leave so that they can discharge this very important responsibility.” I am bound to say that the employers I know on the Witwatersrand have always responded generously, as they are responding to-day. I regret I cannot say the same about one of our government departments. Patriotism like charity begins at home! I want to tell the hon. Minister what is happening on the Witwatersrand, and I want to contrast what is being done by private employers with what is being done by the South African Railways. I do not know much about the Civil Service generally, but perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on that. Now if a young man in the South African Railways serves as a ballotee (what a terrible word!), if he serves his period of compulsory service and is thereafter selected as an officer because he has these great qualities that I have quoted and says “Very well, I am prepared to accept a commission in an Active Citizen Force regiment for six years voluntary service, and I will take the extra courses at college in order to become more efficient”, then this is what the Department of Railways has to say about it. They issued this circular—

Let me now say what the mines on the Witwatersrand do. If they have a young man who has been selected for this service, they say to him: You will get 36 days a year, as all mine employees do, on full pay as annual leave. You are no exception. In addition to that if you have to go to the military college for a course (I am not speaking of a state of emergency, but of the ordinary routine training), or you have to go to camp—as he will have to do if he is an officer—you will get 14 to 21 days on full pay in addition to the 36 days. They are proud of these young fellows and are glad to have them. When they go to military college they receive, in addition to their full pay from the mines, R1.45 a day as a mess allowance. Well, I think I should salute the Chamber of Mines, and salute the banks, because the banks are just as generous. But then we come to the South African Railways. They say: If a man from the South African Railways wishes to accept commissioned rank, he will receive his ordinary annual leave of 30 days (I think it is), but if he wishes to go to camp, or if he wishes to go to college for a course, or whatever is required of him, he will have to use his annual leave or go on leave without pay. When he goes to the military college with the other young men or goes to camp and receives his mess allowance, he will not get R1.45 a day but 75 cents a day. I think we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. I raised this matter with the Minister of Transport, and I want to read to this House what he had to say. He said this after hearing my case—

Are the Railways not part of the Government? Is the hon. Minister of Transport not a member of the Cabinet, a colleague of the hon. Minister of Defence? But he went further and referring to me he said—

Let me explain. When I joined up as a young man, I was in a government department, and I was treated generously, very generously, by my government department, not in this skinflint manner of the hon. Minister of Transport. I think it is a scandal for a government to behave in that way to their young servants. I should like the hon. Minister in his reply to tell us how other members in the Civil Service are treated. What conditions do they have? I am sure they are better than what the hon. Minister of Transport has given us.

Having said that, I want to conlude on a different note. I want to pay a tribute to the hon. Minister of Railways. When, as the Minister has said I was a young man joining up for patriotic motives, I was for a period in the South African Railway Infantry Regiment and served with that regiment, known to these old soldiers as the Jammy 8th. I want to pay a tribute to the Minister because he has given ex-servicemen of the Railways one of the most beautiful chapels and places of remembrance, in Johannesburg, that I have seen in any country. I pay that tribute to him. I say this present treatment of officers is not being done by the hon. Minister of Railways deliberately. It is because he does not understand. I am going to ask the hon. Minister of Defence to make an appeal to him to set an example to employers of this country. Small employers in Johannesburg with five or six men on their staffs are making this sacrifice. We want to be right behind the Minister. But the Government have to set the example. They have to ask us what they want and show us what they will do.

Before replying to the various speeches that were made during the second-reading debate, I first of all want to give the House the assurance that I am very grateful for the general support I have received. At the same time I want to express my regret that my friend, the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) could not divorce himself for half an hour from party political propaganda while discussing a matter of this magnitude.

Not party political propaganda, but common sense we should all be awake to, and we will be in Hot Street if we fail to appreciate that.

The hon. member in his speech said that generally we on this side give them a lot of nonsense and for that reason we have to make these defence preparations. Sir, may I say that while I am glad of the support, I am really sorry for that “but” section of his speech. Sir, members of the Opposition are developing a very serious squint these days, some of them at least. They continually want to look two ways at the same time. When they support the Government, they are looking to the right, but then they immediately start off with their “buts” then they begin winking at the left to get hold of the supporters of the Progressive Party.

How can you say that?

I want to say this afternoon that if the official Opposition goes on squinting like that, their end will be dead against a political lamp post because they never can look really forward.

I shall leave it at that. I simply cannot accept the assistance given to me when it is continually accompanied by offensiveness. When assistance is given to me, I am grateful for it, but when an offence is hurled at me, I have to hit back.

What will you do when you get into trouble?

The great charge came from the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay), the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) as well as the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) and their real opposition to the legislation was that where we are now asking for certain police powers, there they have mixed up Clause 2 and Clause 15. What I am asking under Clause 2 is that we may use a regiment we are training for police work at Voortrekkerhoogte in a certain manner. Those people are well trained. We are training Permanent Force people there, but we also train Citizen Force people because we may need them. Now we are bound by legislation to confer police powers upon members of the Permanent Force for specific purposes only. Permit me to quote it, so that there can be no misunderstanding in this connection. We already have our regulations for members of the Permanent Force who are doing police work. The relevant regulation provides, inter alia—

1. (a) upon any land or property belonging to or occupied by the South African Defence Forces, or under military control;
2. (b) at any place when the power exercised or the duty or function performed relates to—
   1. (i) a person who is subject to military law;
   2. (ii) an offence alleged to have been committed by a person who is, or was when the offence was alleged to have been committed, subject to military law;
   3. (iii) an offence alleged to have been committed by any person upon land or property belonging to, or occupied by, the South African Defence Forces, or under military control;
   4. (iv) an offence alleged to have been committed by any person in respect of any arms, munitions, equipment, stores, aircraft, ships, vehicles, or any thing whatsoever belonging to or in the possession of the South African Defence Forces, or under military control;
   5. (v) any act or omission which is an offence in terms of the Act or the Military Discipline Code;
   6. (vi) the investigation or detection of any offence or matter mentioned in items (ii) to (v) above;
   7. (vii) the trial of any person by a military tribunal or the attendance of any person at such trial;
   8. (viii) the control of the movement of troops or military vehicles, animals, or equipment.

Those are the duties that are imposed upon military police, and all of them are people who have undergone proper training for military police duties at Voortrekkerhoogte. They are trained people. But thus far we have been able to use and train Permanent Force people only for these duties, and now it is proposed to train and use members of the Citizen Force for it also. So there can be no danger that untrained persons will be used for military police duties. That is why I said this afternoon, by way of an interjection, that honestly it seemed to me that during my second-reading speech, I did not put this point clearly enough, and that it had caused a misunderstanding. But that is the position, that the people who are being used here for police duties, are people who have been trained at Voortrekkerhoogte for military police purposes, and they will carry out these police duties as prescribed.

Commando members?

No. We may train Commando members if we wish, but then they have to go to Voortrekkerhoogte and the men then have to be properly trained there as military police. So only properly trained military police will be able to perform these duties.

Then we come to Clause 15, which is something different again. Those are not the people who are going to perform police functions. Only in times of emergency will certain people be called up, people who belong to our Citizen Force or Commandos, to render assistance to the police for 24 hours—not to perform police duties but to render assistance to the police. Let me tell you this afternoon, Mr. Speaker—perhaps you know it—but you will really and truly be glad, if you reside in a small town with only three or four policemen when trouble arises, and you can get 20 or 30 of the members of a Commando or the Citizen Force to assist the police.

And under the command of the police!

Precisely, under the command of the police. It is only an emergency measure, and I as Minister of Defence am convinced that we may need this in the future. Now where does the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) get it from that with this simple change, that the police can be assisted in times of emergency, the entire emphasis in regard to our defence, is now being shifted from external defence to internal security? I wish to object most strongly to that. We already have enough trouble in connection with the acquisition of armaments. The hon. member for Heilbron has pointed out what Mr. Harold Wilson has said, and it is no good us pulling faces here in disapproval of what Wilson has said. Mr. Wilson is not a person we can shake off by pulling a face. He is the Leader of the official Opposition in one of the great Western countries, and he is the man who will most probably come into power in England. We have to take very seriously what he says now. But apart from what he says, it is constantly being insinuated that South Africa is not building up its defences for self-defence, and they say we are not being threatened. Mr. Chairman, however we may try to explain, and whatever we may say, people continue to say that South Africa is building up its defence in order to subdue the Black man in South Africa. Nothing can be further from the truth, and the hon. member for Turffontein also knows that it is not so, but when he now says that in South Africa the emphasis has been shifted from defence against attacks from outside to internal security, then surely he is playing directly into the hands of the people who are constantly coming along with that farcical argument that we are buying arms for our internal security. You can ask now: Can there be a person in the world who is so stupid as to believe that we should have to buy modern aircraft, that we should buy modern ships, that we should buy modern anti-aircraft guns and that we should buy air-craft travelling at twice the speed of sound, to fight against our internal population? Of course no sensible person can believe that, but truly there are people overseas who believe it. And if we come forward now with the argument that we are shifting the emphasis of our defence policy, surely that is stupidity. We ought to preserve a sense of values, but the hon. member does not preserve a sense of values. Here we are now dealing with a small matter, namely to render assistance to the police in an emergency, this small thing that they may for 24 hours make use of a few of our Citizen Force people to help them …

I have no objection to that.

I know the hon. member has no objection to that, but then the hon. member perpetrated the indiscretion of saying that it is a shifting of the emphasis from external defence to internal security.

I did not say that. When I was referring to the change in the emphasis in our defence organization, I expressly referred to Clause 2, I said nothing in this connection regarding Clause 15. If the Minister refers to the Hansard report, he will see that.

I accept that the hon. member was referring to Clause 2. But after my explanation that we are at present using the men for police duties and that they are fully trained military policemen, and that all we want in addition now is also to make use of the Citizen Force after they have been trained as military policemen for that task, will the hon. member still say that it is a change of the emphasis?

I did not say that, but the Minister did not say it in his second-reading speech when he introduced the Bill, and it is not in the Bill either.

I merely wish to repeat that whenever I have an opportunity during a debate here to show that South Africa is not purchasing these armaments because we want to defend ourselves internally, I do so every time. Hon. members may think I am too touchy on that point already, but I should like to tell you, Sir, that if you were responsible for the build-up of South Africa’s defence, and if you were constantly to hear those threats that arms should not be sold to South Africa because we want to use the arms against our internal population, would you not feel hurt about it? That is why, whenever I have an opportunity to repudiate such an argument, I make the fullest use of it.

Of course it is the greatest nonsense to say the converse.

I think I have now put the police question as clearly as I can. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) and the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) also, made out a very strong case for the loss ballotees may suffer in consequence of the fact that they are being trained. I am very sorry about that, but we cannot rectify that in defence legislation. Other legislation deals with that, industrial legislation and labour legislation. Then I wish to thank the hon. member for Pretoria (West) for the attempt he made to serve these ballotees. I should also like to say this to the hon. members for Turffontein and Kensington (Mr. Moore) who championed the cause of railway officials who wish to serve in the Citizen Force, that I receive tremendous assistance from the Minister of Railways. A short while ago I badly needed an officer in Bloemfontein, and he was prepared to transfer an officer from the Rand to Bloemfontein so that I could have that officer there. He has already assisted me with engineers etc. whom I need in Defence, while he also has a dearth of these people. But on this one point I just cannot convince him. He feels very strongly that the Railways and Defence are both Government Departments, and he says why should the one Government Department pay for the services for another Government Department.

He is now being very obstinate.

No, I am not saying that, But we have received the consent of Treasury to treat the railway people as non-service members, i.e. we do not pay them the usual allowances a service member receives, who also receives his salary while he is there for training, but we pay them the allowance of a non-service member, and that has been the position since October.

The hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) has also made the point in connection with the police argument that there is a difference in training between the work of a policeman and that of a defence force man. But I repeat once again that the people we use for police service, are people who have received police training. We have sent our officers to the police college and they received training there, and now they are training our military police. Therefore they are people who receive police training with their military training.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) I know feels very strongly about this matter that all people in our country should receive some kind of military training. He feels so strongly about it that he says we should not only give all the people military training, but all of them should be provided with work in industry. I want to say to him once again that we cannot train all the people. In the past we have trained a few thousand Citizen Force men. This year we are already training 14,000 Citizen Force men and Gymnasium members. This is tremendous progress.

I have already said in the past that if we were to be attacked from outside, we cannot win with numbers, but with quality, by training, with people who have been properly trained, and who have the will to save their fatherland. Now we cannot proceed so rapidly at this stage as to train all people. I should very much like to organize a division for women in our defence force. I am very seriously considering that. [Hear, hear!] Our women could perform very many functions in the Defence Force, and could release many men for active service. I have already discussed it with my advisers, but once again it is a question of what you are physically able to do. When I became very serious about this matter, one of my officials merely said: “Mr. Minister, but there is a limit to one’s physical capacity; we cannot do it now” and I accept that. But it certainly is not my intention to stop at this, that only a small number of our people, or only a certain number, even if it is only 50 per cent, are trained. It is my ideal to do away with the ballot system and everybody must receive training. [Hear, hear!] But for goodness sake give me the opportunity to get to that. I shall get the money, but I must have the physical capacity, and that bothers me more than the money.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) spoke about the facilities that we will have to provide for the Air Commandos, and also the hon. member for Bethal-Middelburg (Mr. J. W. Rall). I appreciate what the hon. member said, but I cannot give him full details at present. My people are still working that out with the people concerned. But I can assure him that they will be able to look after their own affairs and they will not allow us to let them down. We will enter into a proper agreement with them after having consulted with them in regard to all the details.

*The hon. member for Bethal-Middelburg made a long speech and he revealed a profound knowledge of military and aviation matters. A speech of that nature is an asset to this House. But it is clear to me that the hon. member is contemplating the building up of a second air force, and the Air Commandos can never be that. You know, Sir, he scared me so much last night when he mentioned all the things I should provide that I very nearly surrendered. No, we can never make a second Air Force of the Air Commandos, and for that reason—and this will fit with his later argument—I wish to say that these Air Commandos should fall under the control of the army and not that of the Air Force. I cannot accede to his request that it should fall under the Air Force because the Air Commandos will be there for the specific purpose of assisting our Commandos in time of need. Our other military divisions are planned and built up on the basis of ground and air support. These Air Commandos fall under quite a different category. They are there to assist our Commandos and for that reason they have to fall under the army and not under the Air Force.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) also objected to the salary scales of ballotees. I can only tell him what I have told other hon. members. Then he said he is quite satisfied that officers who are now appointed to the Commandos should have Std. X, but he says you find a one-eyed man, or a cripple, or a man who does not have the required educational standard, who should also be eligible for officer’s material. Where there are deserving cases, where a man who has not matriculated has shown in his field that he has the desire to assist in organizing the Commando, and possesses the aptitude to serve as an officer, we are daily giving consent for these exceptions to be made that people who are not matriculated should be appointed as officers if they are the only ones who fit in there properly. But I cannot agree with the plea that we should accept as officers in the Commandos people who are medically unfit. When those people are called up for military service, we are responsible for what happens to them. After the emergency of the year before last, we did in fact have serious problems in regard to a few cases of Commando members to whom something had happened during their period of service, as a result of the fact that they were medically unfit when we brought them there. Therefore I cannot concede that point.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) accepted the idea of immunization, but said there would be difficulty in getting people to swallow the pills. Well, the hon. member for Turffontein answered him much better on that point than I could do. The hon. member for Turffontein assured me that there is always some way of doing it in the Army.

Then the hon. member for Bethal (Middelburg said he thought that the remuneration of R6 per hour is too little. It has never been the intention to compensate these pilots fully for their flying hours, because remember these people are flying in their own interests. This 18 to 23 hour limit that is being imposed are hours which are all being flown in the man’s own interests. If he is a member of the Air Commando, we subsidize him at the rate of R6 per hour, but those are hours he flies in his own interests.

One of the hon. members raised the question of liability, and asked what about the man who has an accident, who has a forced landing or flies into a house. We provide for that in this Bill. We accept responsibility for that, while the man is there for his training, but not during his ordinary flights.

Somebody has asked me who will decide who is to be included and who not when we come to appoint the Manpower Board. The hon. member felt very strongly that the Manpower Board should not be a rampart behind which people who do not wish to perform their military duties can hide. I myself became afraid that if this Manpower Board releases certain categories of men in advance we will eventually not know what to do with all the students who will want to study in that direction! But we should have confidence in our people. Take our ballotees, the youths who come from school for their nine months’ training. They do not occupy key positions as yet, and therefore they will not fall under that. But the artisan who has received a deferment, and has been trained, may subsequently be in a key position, and the Manpower Board can then say that those people are occupying key positions and we cannot take them. I should like to say also that I am hoping that I shall make further progress with the railway problem once we have a Manpower Board which can say that certain railway officials may not join the Defence Force because they are keymen. But we need the Manpower Board for more than that. I should have liked to give everybody military training, but we cannot do so. But from experience we know that at this moment we are engaged in training people whom we shall never be able to call up, and what is the good of that? It is best that these people be exempted. The hon. member for Turffontein has also asked this question: What are we going to do if we find, after a ballot, that we have a large number of people who have been exempted by the Board? Well, I see the matter thus. We shall merely ballot more people than we will train. We are at present balloting many more people than we really wish to train, because from experience we know that something may go wrong, and we know what the percentage is. Therefore we ballot for that extra percentage. If we want 10,000, we may perhaps ballot 14,000. If we know which categories are being exempted by the Exemption Board, all of them will still be balloted, but we shall ballot so many that we shall be able to release those people.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have now replied to everything. I should like to urge once again that where we are now concerned with the defence of South Africa, and because I, as Minister, have done my very best to keep politics out of the Defence Force, and because I really feel that South Africa’s future largely depends on the strength of our Defence Force, particularly in these days of cold war, I should like to make a final appeal that when we are dealing with defence matters, let us for goodness sake keep politics out of it. We have six months of the year to talk politics, but do let us cut it out for the one or two days when we are dealing with defence matters.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read the second time.

I move—

Hon. members will recall that last year Parliament passed a fairly long Amendment Act (No. 11 of 1962) to the Unit Trusts Control Act, 1947. The object of last year’s. Amendment Bill was in the main to remove from the principal Act certain limitations that made it impossible for the so-called open trust to be established here in South Africa. At the same time we introduced certain measures in the Amendment Act which made proper provision for suitable control over open trusts.

Perhaps it is desirable that I should refresh hon. members’ memories by briefly again defining an open trust. It is a portfolio of marketable securities mainly (as a rule quoted shares) in which the members of the public are invited to purchase a unit. The price of such a unit (that is the expression we use for the interest of an investor in a unit trust scheme) is determined by assessing the pro rata value of a unit to the total market value of all the securities that are contained in the portfolio at any given time. For the proceeds of units that are sold, new assets are placed in the portfolio. The idea is that an open trust can grow to any size and the ease with which such a trust can grow to an economically profitable unit, and the ease with which the public can invest in it and again realize their investments, are some of the greatest advantages of this type of scheme.

Open trusts are being operated in the United States, the United Kingdom and most of the countries of the continent of Europe with great success. It is a method of mobilizing the savings of the public, and of investing the funds mainly in industrial securities of either existing industries or, to a limited extent, in new undertakings. It can serve the important purpose of fostering industrial development and at the same time making the people more conscious of the advantages of investment in shares, which is an investment in real assets and accordingly serves as a protection against any possible drop in the value of money.

Open trusts, as operated in the countries I have just mentioned, are a very specialized type of institution which necessarily have to be operated by experts in this field. Because this type of institution is so specialized, it is inevitable also that our legislation is to a certain extent technical in nature. When last year’s amending legislation was being drafted, my Department had to make a special study of this comparatively technical matter. There was no legislation worth mentioning in other countries that could serve as a precedent for us. and for the rest we had no experience locally of the operation of open trusts. In the circumstances we had to rely on the literature on the subject we could lay our hands upon. Consequently our approach to the matter was purely theoretical. After the amendment Act was passed last year, we did not promulgate it immediately. It would have come into operation upon a date fixed by the State President by proclamation, but after it was passed certain large and well-known business interests in this country, which presumably are interested in the establishment of open trusts, sent representatives to the United Kingdom to make an intensive study of the operation of open trusts there. Through their contact with the practice, as opposed to the theory, these people then ascertained that in our legislation, as passed by us last year, there were a few small snags. These snags are of such a nature that they would have caused real problems in the administration of open trusts, and consequently it was impossible for us to put into operation last year’s amending Act before the most important of these further amendments now proposed in this Bill were made. Nearly all these amendments are necessary to effect the necessary rectifications—rectifications that are first necessary before open trusts can be operated in the proper manner, and secondly, after the requirements that are now imposing such an unfair burden on the operators of open trusts that it will necessarily have a very hampering effect upon the entire open trust movement, and that we are running the risk that any possible operator of such an open trust will be discouraged from ever starting such a business.

I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the particulars of the various amendments now. I have already said it is an exceptionally technical matter; the amendments are very technical, and I have thought fit to have an explanatory memorandum drafted that carefully sets forth the existing sections, the changes we are now making, and the reason for the change. I gave it to hon. members during the recess and I think they will agree with me that no new principle is being introduced in this amending legislation, but that the amendments we are asking for are purely amendments for the better implementation of the principle we approved last year.

As an example of the kind of amendment to the legislation which is necessary, I should like to mention that it is customary for brokers’ fees in respect of the purchase of the securities included in a scheme, to be taken into account inter alia when the price which the investor has to pay for the units is calculated. As the Act reads at present, this cannot be done, and accordingly an amendment is required. Secondly I could mention that if an investor invests in a scheme during the period between the dates when dividends are periodically paid, it is necessary that he should pay a small sum in addition to the calculated price which represents dividends earned in the scheme up to the date of his investment. When subsequently the dividend is paid, such an investor receives the ordinary dividend, but a portion of that actually is a refund of the additional amount he has already paid when purchasing his units. In terms of the Act as it stands now, this simply did not work, and now we are rectifying that.

I shall content myself with this explanation at this stage. Hon. members have full information. The few examples I have mentioned are not something one can have printed in the form of the ordinary White Paper, but I think hon. members on both sides who are interested have now had an opportunity to study it. I may just mention, furthermore, that after this amendment Bill has been passed we shall be in a position to put the amendment Act of 1962, together with this amending legislation, into operation without any further delay, because in the meantime my Department has also drafted the requisite regulations under the Act, which are ready for immediate publication.

Mr. Speaker, in commending this Bill for the consideration of the House, I should just like to add this, that in circumstances such as we are now concerned with in regard to this legislation, which is pioneering legislation in this particular field, it must be expected that we shall have problems such as those we have experienced. Nevertheless, we are reasonably certain of one thing, and that is that with this legislation, as now amended, we have established a practical and acceptable basis for the effective control of open trusts.

The Minister has given us an explanatory memorandum and we are grateful for the fact that we received it in good time. The Minister said last year that this was breaking new ground. He has discovered anomalies although this measure is barely a year old. Sir, we support the second reading of the Bill. We may require further clarification during the Committee Stage in respect of one or two things. I would refer the Minister in passing to Clause 2 of the Bill which seeks to amend Section 3 of the principal Act which provides for the procedure in the event of a deficiency of capital. The section provides that the Registrar may allow a period of six months to make good any deficiency in capital, but it is not clear from which date one calculates the period of six months. Is it from the date of the deficiency or from the date on which the Registrar gives notice? Then further on in the second portion of Clause 2 which again amends Section 3 of the principal Act, provision is made for where the company discovers that it has a deficiency, the company shall put that deficiency right within three months of discovering the deficiency. In the one case it is a period of six months and the other a period of three months. It does appear to us that if there is any tardiness on the part of the Registrar and the deficiency is material, there might be prejudice where the company has not been looking after its affairs. However, we will have an opportunity of examining that in the Committee Stage. The Bill does seek to remove certain anomalies in the definitions. There is a new definition dealing with income accruals. We are glad to see that provision is made in Clause 9 for the conditions of repurchase. Section 22 of the original Act stated that units must be repurchased but the conditions are not stated there. This Bill lays down the conditions for repurchase. Those are the matters to which we will probably direct the Minister’s attention in the Committee Stage. At this stage we are prepared to support the second reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I think it goes without saying that we are going to vote against this clause. May I also add that in this clause, of course, to a very great extent lies the whole of the mischief of the Bill. This clause provides for the Transkei to be a self-governing territory within the Republic of South Africa. I would find it hard to believe that it could be outside of South Africa! However that may be, if it is necessary for the law to say that it will remain in South Africa and that we will not be moving it across our border somewhere, well, then the law has said so. Sir, I am now going to take “self-governing territory” as meaning what the words say, that is, a territory which can govern itself and which the Government proposes by means of this Bill to permit to govern itself; in fact, I would go further and say that the Government proposes to encourage, and indeed they are encouraging it. The fact that in this Bill there are only certain steps taken and that formal sovereign powers, as distinct from self-government, if there is a distinction, are not provided for in this Bill, is a matter which to my mind is of no consequence whatever. What is happening here is that we are telling the people of the Transkei that the Parliament of South Africa is providing them with a constitution under which they can become self-governing, and from that stems the whole of the difficulties with which South Africa will have to contend when we create a self-governing territory here in the geographical area which is to-day called the Republic of South Africa, the mischief of which no man can foresee the end. We have seen the trouble at the present time in territories which are our neighbours and the difficulties and the immense danger that flow from those territories. Here we now create a territory, right in our midst, which can provide precisely those dangers except to a greater extent than ever before. Sir, I would appeal to the Minister and the Government even at this late stage before they go one step further than this Bill, and notwithstanding how far they may have committed themselves bearing in mind the fact that this Bill is coming before us while Proclamation 400 is still in existence and still applies to the Transkei— there is almost a state of martial law existing in the Transkei, the territory to which the Government proposes to give self-government or independence, I would appeal to the Government even at this stage to say, “we are not going on with this Bill until affairs in the Republic have settled down.” We cannot grant self-government and independence to a state situated as that country is when its own internal condition is so disturbed that we dare not withdraw Proclamation 400. If any proof was needed as to how inadvisable, how unwise, how perilous the step is which the Government contemplates, then it is the very fact that the Government cannot withdraw Proclamation 400 at this stage. Why do they keep Proclamation 400 if it is not because of the perilous condition within the four comers of the Transkei at the present time? Sir, to grant self-government to this territory under these circumstances is fatal, to my mind, to the Republic of South Africa. We are driving a dagger right into the heart of our own country by creating these conditions here. What is the good of hon. members opposite telling us about the danger that comes from having people in Basutoland and in the territories to the north of us, Tanganyika and elsewhere, who are carrying on their nefarious practices against South Africa and asking us for special powers to deal with them when in the same breath the Government comes forward with a measure of this kind which is going to create a place of refuge, a haven, for the very people that we are now arming ourselves to deal with when they operate from territories beyond our borders? Sir, it is inconceivable, it is incredible to me, that the Government can have so little comprehension of the circumstances which have led them to bring in the Bill which we have just passed, the General Law Amendment Bill, that they should continue with a measure of this kind, creating all these evils, because what flows directly from this clause? The right of these people to go to UNO at once and demand that there be intervention in our affairs here in South Africa. That is what stems from this clause, and every other power that they can claim. I am not going to deal with Clause 2, the question of boundaries. I leave that to my colleague; I may probably speak on it myself, but we are sorely tempted to deal with that aspect at this moment because we are creating a self-governing territory with fluid boundaries, with the whole of the history of border wars against us. We are creating a self-governing independent country here with fluid boundaries. Sir, is there anything that can possibly be more threatening to South Africa and to our internal peace and security than to continue with a measure such as this at the present time? It does not matter what the Minister may have in his mind about this Bill. The people of the Transkei are going to say that what is written here in black and white is what matters. They are going to demand what is written in the Bill, not what the Minister or the Government or any spokesman of the Government may say, not even what the Prime Minister says about it. What counts is what is written here, in exactly the same way as we look at our Constitution and have looked at it in the past. Of all the dangerous, provocative things that the Government can do at the present time, nothing is more dangerous than this. Sir, the division lists on this clause are going to show South Africa who is driving the dagger into the heart of our country. The hon. the Minister smiles. That is the attitude of the Government. This is a laughing matter to the Government.

We hear that from you in every Bill.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, may I say, “shut up, Frankie, we have heard enough of your nonsense.” I would appeal to the hon. the Minister of Information if I thought that he had a glimmer of understanding as to what is necessary to grapple with a problem like this, but he has no such glimmer of understanding. I appeal to the Minister of Bantu Administration. Do not treat this as a laughing matter.

But you are.

The hon. the Minister sits there and I stand here; he will be sitting there later and I will be standing here and I will remind him of the speech which I make here to-day. [Laughter.] Hon. members need not laugh. Those who are not imperilled can laugh. [Interjection.] My hon. friend over there, the member for Winburg comes from the Free State. How much is he giving from his province?

You are a great joke to me.

No, Sir, let those who are not imperilled laugh if they like. Those of us who are imperilled know precisely where the danger lies, and I warn the Government that the step that they are taking in passing Clause 1 is a fatal step, the fatal step, in the history of South Africa. [Time limit.]

I want to point out to hon. members that the principle of granting self-government to the Transkeian Territories has been adopted at the second reading. I have allowed the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) as the first speaker on the Opposition side to state his objections but I am not going to permit a debate on the principle.

My argument is going to cover three or four matters contained in this clause, and I think I should just put this for the sake of the record: “The territory described in Section 2 shall under the name of the Transkei be a self-governing territory within the Republic of South Africa …” So we have in this clause, three important considerations or factors we have to face when we consider this clause. In the first place this clause refers to Clause 2. In Clause 2 recognition is given to nine separate groups comprising the Transkei; in other words, this area is treated as a unit by the Minister. Those nine areas will now be regarded as one. In my opinion this is the first mistake made in this clause, a mistake that involves a great and serious danger, in that the hon. the Minister does not take notice of the past and of the history of this area or its tribes. The weakness of this clause lies in this, that the hon. the Minister regards these nine areas as one. They have never been a political unit; they have always existed separately and have been treated separately. Even in the time of Glenelg treaties were made separately with each of these territories. In other words, it is a serious shortcoming in this clause that may have farreaching consequences for us and for the future.

The second factor that emerges clearly from this clause, is the fact that the Minister himself has admitted that this area has been an integral part of the Republic of South Africa heretofore. By giving self-government to this integral part of South Africa, the Minister is exposing his own country to great danger, and he is creating, on the borders of the Republic of South Africa, an area that will expose our eastern borders to our enemies from the East. By giving self-government to this area, territory now still within the Republic of South Africa, the Minister will also expose us on the western border to the mercy of another territory, namely Basutoland.

Order! The hon. member is also now discussing the principle.

I am pointing out the dangers inherent in this clause, dangers that lead to us not being able to support this clause.

I have already permitted the hon. member for South Coast to state his objection. The hon. member must not repeat arguments.

No, I shall not repeat. We are dealing here with a clause that grants self-government to a territory within the Republic of South Africa, in other words, a form of Government that will lead to the next form of Government and that is the independence of that Transkei territory. When we were discussing the principle of the Bill, we pointed out the serious dangers it may spell for the Republic of South Africa. For those three or four reasons I have just referred to, we on this side cannot support the clause. We shall oppose it. Together with my hon. friend here who has just spoken, I should like to appeal…

[Inaudible.]

… in the first place to the Minister of Information to keep quiet— I am not talking to him; I am talking to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development—and in the second place, to the Minister in charge of this measure to reconsider at this late stage, for I know that he, like myself does not want to give South Africa away or fritter away pieces of it, but that he also wishes to preserve the Republic.

I want to confine myself to two words in this first clause and those words are “self-governing territory”. We know that the principle has been adopted at the second reading that the Transkei will become a self-governing territory but there is one thing in regard to which we in this House have not yet had any clarity whatsoever and that is in regard to the precise meaning of the words “self-governing territory” in this clause. We have had the excuse, which has sometimes been given by the Minister and other members opposite in addressing rural audiences, that this will simply mean some sort of selfrule. On the other hand we have had assurances that have been given to the outside world that this will mean full self-government, and it is time that we had clarity in this regard. Let me mention a few examples to the House of the way in which this term “self-government” has been defined in the past. Here is one definition given by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. He said—

In other words, “self-government” may mean the same sort of governing bodies as we have to-day, now or in the future. I think of the words of the hon. the Prime Minister in this connection. In 1962 he said (Hansard, Col. 7071)—

Is that the intention or the initial intention of the term “self-governing territory” in this clause?—

And then the hon. the Prime Minister did of course admit that this would present problems—

We have had numerous official statements as to the meaning of “self-government for the Transkei” and practically everyone of them has been different. Not even the Government newspapers are able to agree in that connection. For example, on 31 January 1962, the Burger stated as follows. (Translation)—

In other words, the Transkei is being given to its rightful owners; in other words, the new self-governing territory that is going to be created here will have unrestricted freehold title. But, as the Burger also correctly stated, “The final result may well be dismemberment and secession”. I have in mind another statement that was made by the hon. the Prime Minister last year in the House of Assembly when he said—

Order! The hon. member is now discussing the principle.

I accept that the principle was approved of at the second reading. What I want to discuss here is the meaning of the term “self-governing territory Does this mean what the hon. the Prime Minister calls the start of the development towards separate Bantu states or does it mean, as he said in a pamphlet, the so-called National Party News of August 1959. [Translation]—

What do these words “self-governing territory mean? Can the hon. the Minister give us an unequivocal statement in this regard? We are being asked here to adopt a clause containing these dangerous words “self-governing territory”, and we do not know precisely what they mean. If it merely meant restricted control, then the term “self-management” (selfbestuur) would have been used here. If the intention was that it should be like a provincial administration then the term “self administration” would have been used.

I have here another new definition of “self-governing territory”, a definition which was given in an advertisement inserted in the London Observer by the hon. the Minister of Information. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what the correct explanation is. The following words appeared in the London Observer in pursuance of an interview that was given by the hon. the Minister of Information in which he said—

If “self-government” means Dominion status, the status of a member of a commonwealth, then the hon. the Minister himself knows what great powers we had as a member of the Commonwealth, what great powers we had as a Dominion. We had full control over our own affairs; we had full independence. Let the hon. the Minister tell us what is meant by that. Chief Matanzima said in a statement that “self-government” meant dominion status for them. That possibly goes much further than is intended by this Bill, but what the hon. the Minister has in mind for the future with this Bill is quite clear. As he himself said—

But then the hon. the Minister came along with another. In the South African Digest of 3 April 1959, he stated—

But he did change his opinion afterwards. I believe to-day that it is the intention of this Government to give these states independence, independence which is dangerous for them and dangerous for us here in South Africa, and I challenge the hon. the Minister to deny that that is the correct interpretation of these two dangerous words in this particular clause in which the term “self-governing territory” is used. I have a report here of what was said by Chief Matanzima in an interview in regard to what he regarded as the meaning of “self-government” for his territory. He said amongst other things—

Here the future Prime Minister of the Transkei says that this self-governing territory is going to be more than a province. Is that correct? I believe that it is correct. I believe that the hon. the Minister has far more than a province in mind; that he has Dominion status in mind and that thereafter he has even greater so-called self-government in mind which is going to prove fatal for those people, for that territory and for the whole of South Africa.

Hitherto in the debate on this clause not a single argument has been advanced by the Opposition which they have not already used in the second-reading debate and which has not been discussed thoroughly on both sides. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) said that the Republic of South Africa is being fragmented. As against that I say this area which now constitutes the Transkei has never been White man’s land right from the beginning up to now. [Interjection.] The hon. member should not interrupt me.

Order! The hon. member is now also discussing the principle.

I am just pointing out that it is said that we are giving away part of South Africa. I say that we are not giving away a part of South Africa which belonged to the White man. There is certain land which has always belonged to the Black man and over which we only have rights of guardianship.

Study your history.

Order! I have already pointed out to hon. members that this affects the principle. I have allowed one speaker to discuss the principle, but I am not going to allow further discussion of the principle.

I hope you will just allow me to react to a few things which were said by hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) tried to advance the same arguments.

The hon. member for Orange Grove only wanted clarity as to the meaning of “self-governing area”.

Then I can simply reply that the meaning of “self-government” will become quite clear to him when we get to that part of the Bill which describes the various powers which that Government will be given. That is also a point which has repeatedly been discussed in the second reading. Hon. members opposite have made this attempt. We have been waiting to hear what they would advance, but they did not advance anything. Sir, I am sure you will give us a small measure of liberty to reply to the points they raised. There is not the least fragmentation here because it is land which never belonged to White South Africa, of which hitherto we have only been the guardians. As my hon. friend here says, in the 1936 Act …

The hon. member is defending the principle. He must confine himself to the details.

I abide by your ruling, Sir, but I say that hon. members opposite in fact raised those points …

I have ruled that hon. members cannot continue along those lines.

Then I hope they will not continue in that way either.

Order!

This clause deals with a portion of the territory of South Africa which has hitherto been under the full control and government of this Parliament and legislation in respect of that territory, except in so far as limited powers have been extended, is vested here. In any case all the residual powers to exercise full sovereignty in respect of the territory vests at this moment in this Parliament. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) is therefore completely wrong in the statement which he has just made, a statement with which I am not going to deal in detail, in that he overlooks the very important question of sovereignty. I should like to remind hon. members opposite that they, through the years, have laid the utmost stress upon the question of the sovereignty of this Parliament. This clause is the first clause to break into that sovereignty and to bring about a new situation in South Africa. I say to members of the Nationalist Party …

Order! The principle has been adopted at the second reading that the Transkei will be a self-governing area.

If you do not allow me to proceed with that I can only say that I regret it. I should like to proceed and to give the reasons to hon. members why, as is our undoubted right, …

On a point of order, Sir, with respect: You say that the principle has been accepted. The hon. member was saying that this was the first inroad into the sovereignty of this Parliament as far as that territory was concerned. We would like your guidance, Mr. Chairman. This is a very long Bill and we would like to co-operate with the Chair. In what respect does the hon. member transgress the principle of Clause I when he says that this is the first inroad into the sovereignty of this Parliament in regard to this territory?

The principle has been adopted that this will be a self-governing territory, to that extent the principle has been accepted that the inroad should be made.

So you accept that there is a deprivation of sovereignty …

Order, order!

I want clarity on this matter, Sir, if you do not mind; we should like to have your guidance in this matter.

I have given my guidance.

Your ruling then, Sir, is that there is a diminution of that sovereignty in regard to the Transkei. That must be the basis of your ruling, surely.

Order! The hon. member cannot expect the Chair to express an opinion on the Bill.

No, Sir, I am not expecting that. I am asking for guidance on your own ruling.

Order! I have given my guidance and the hon. member must abide by it.

We are going to vote against this clause and we want to debate it in terms of your ruling.

As I indicated previously, I allowed the first speaker on the Opposition side to state his objection to the clause and for the rest hon. members must confine themselves strictly to the details.

Can we accept, for the purposes of this debate, that we must leave alone the question of the diminution of sovereignty because that underlies your ruling? That is the principle of your ruling.

I am not going to give a legal opinion from the Chair. I will call the hon. member to order when I think he is transgressing my ruling.

Thank you, Sir, but it makes it a very difficult ruling to obey. If the Chairman adopts the attitude …

The ruling is very clear. The hon. member must not discuss the principle; that is all.

I am opposed to this clause and I wish to submit reasons why this clause should be omitted from this Bill as is the undoubted right of this House.

Order! The hon. member can achieve the same object by voting against the clause.

With respect, Sir, I wish to give reasons, and I submit that it is my undoubted right as a member of this House to give those reasons, why hon. members on this side and on that side of the House should vote to delete this clause from the Bill. That is one of the rights which we as members of this House have.

Provided the hon. member does not attack the principle which has been adopted.

I hope it will be possible for me to keep within your ruling. I want to submit that hon. members seeking to secure the deletion of a clause from the Bill should, in all fairness, be allowed to state the reasons why it is believed that such a clause should not be included in a piece of legislation passed by this House. I shall do my best to deal with that without attacking the principle which, I understand, is that the territory is self-governing. I wish to advance this reason why this clause should not be passed in the form in which it appears, namely, that the enactment of this clause brings about an entirely new situation, not so much because of the terms of the clause itself but because of statements which have been made again and again by the hon. the Minister who is before us, by the hon. the Prime Minister and others. What we in this House have been told is that this clause is the first step along a long road. We have been told clearly that the end of that road—I do not want to put it higher— will, under this Government, undoubtedly lead to the separation of the territory which is referred to in this clause from the rest of the Republic.

Order! The hon. member is attacking the principle and I cannot allow him to go on.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, paragraph 173 of our Rules reads as follows—

With respect, Sir, that is what we are trying to do. That is the reason why I said that the contents of this Bill consisted of three details. Those were the details on which I argued and I submit, with respect, Sir, that those are the details on which the hon. member is basing his conclusions. I want to appeal to you, Sir, to give us the opportunity to deal with the clause.

If I were to allow hon. members the concession which the hon. member asks, we shall have a secondreading debate during the Committee Stage and I cannot allow that.

I shall do my best. Sir, to act in accordance with your ruling. I want to say this that the subject which I want to discuss is not in this clause although it is closely related to it.

But the hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

It is my submission. Sir, that members should be entitled, as they have an undoubted right to delete a clause from a Bill, to give reasons why it should be deleted without attacking the principle which is contained in the clause. I am desirous of convincing hon. members opposite that this clause in its present form is a clause which should not be allowed to remain in this Bill because of statements which have been made by the Government of this country as to what will be the follow-up of this clause. I do submit that that is a reason which is relevant and the reason which can be submitted to this House as a reason for deleting the clause from the Bill.

Why do you not suggest an amendment then?

The responsibility in respect of this Bill rests fairly and squarely on this Minister and hon. members on the other side of the House. We have made that perfectly clear. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) must not try to dictate to me how I should deal with the matter. I think that this clause is one of a nature which should be deleted from this Bill entirely. I am not prepared to amend it or to seek to improve it. [Interjections.] Of course, I must refer to it in its present form, but I must not discuss the detail of the clause. My submission is that this clause is one which should be deleted from this Bill. The Government has stated which road it is which it is travelling; it has indicated a matter which goes far beyond this clause, a matter, which I submit, endangers this state and which we should accordingly be entitled to discuss in this House before we adopt a clause of this sort, a clause which will have a trigger action, in the words of the Minister, and which leads to a result which is very different from the clause as it is before this House at present. The road which has been sketched by the hon. the Minister and his colleagues—although it has been denied the pattern is clear—will lead to the sovereign independence of that territory and its exclusion from the boundaries of the Republic.

I must ask the hon. member to obey my ruling.

I am sorry, Sir. that I cannot make the point. I only hope that on later clauses of the Bill I will be able to convince hon. members. I will confine myself to saying this that I regard this clause as a. mischievous and dangerous clause and for my part I propose to vote against it and I believe that every true South African in this House will do the same.

Mr. Chairman, you will forgive me if I revert to the speech of the hon. member for Orange Gove (Mr. E. G. Malan). He says he no longer knows what self-government means, nor what a self-governing territory means. All it means is that under this clause a mechanism of government is established for the people in a certain territory by the people in that area, but subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Act. If the hon. member for Orange Grove had first read it, he would have known it. It is subject to the provisions of this Act, and particularly subject to the provisions of clause 9. You will forgive me, Mr. Chairman, for mentioning this. Clause 9 deals with the executive authority. Anyone who knows anything about government matters, will see that this new self-government will be similar to our provinces, namely subject to the executive authority of the Republic.

Does a province have Ministers?

What is there to a name? Shakespeare said “a rose by any other name smells just as sweet”. We could say there are executive council members or Ministers; we can call them what we like. Does the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) have a better word than the word “Minster”? Does he object to us calling certain officials who are charged with the handling of authority Ministers? The hon. member for Hillbrow is now raising a hare in an attempt to make me change my tune because I told him what this clause means. I am saying this to the hon. member for Orange Grove in particular, for he needs this education. He asked for it. The hon. member must look at Clause 9 which says that the whole apparatus of government will function under the direction of the apparatus of government of the Republic and the same applies in the case of Clause 40. The legislative apparatus is being dealt with there. Ultimately the various laws made by the governing mechanism established for this territory come to the State President. The people of that territory themselves will design their own laws, but subject to the direction, to the discretion, to the correction and recommendations of the authorities in the Republic. How can we say it is a matter that falls outside the governing apparatus of the Republic? This clause has been drafted in such a way that it makes it clear without any doubt that that territory is going to govern itself, but always still as an integral part of the Republic.

The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) has asked this Committee whether it matters what name we use for the Transkei. You have ruled, Mr. Chairman, that the principle has been decided that there shall be a self-governing state, a self-governing territory, called the Transkei.

I ruled that it will be a self-governing territory.

I changed the word to “state” from “territory”, Sir. It shall be a self-governing territory. That indicates exactly the argument of a “rose by any other name”. The hon. member for Standerton said it did not matter what you called it because “a rose by any other name smelt just as sweet”. But when I substituted “state” for “territory”, I am immediately called to order by you, Mr. Chairman, and correctly called to order, indicating that the use of the word “state” changes the meaning of this Bill. But the member for Standerton says that it does not matter what you call it. Then he went on, and I think this is an even more important admission on the part of the member for Standerton. He said that this self-governing territory was not in fact really self-governing because it was really a mechanism which would function under the Government of South Africa. In other words, it is a non-self-governing self-governing territory! We have now achieved the position of a non-self-governing territory with self-government! Because that was what the hon. member for Standerton said. He said that this territory was not self-governing; that it was under the control of the Republic of South Africa; that the final authority rested with the Republican Parliament.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I suggest that that hon. member should give a legal opinion seeing that he is an expert on constitutional law! If he gives a legal opinion you can rest assured that it will be the opposite. When this member, says it does not matter what we call this territory I realize at once …

He never said that. He spoke about Ministers.

When I taxed him about it, he said again that it did not matter what you called it.

Whether you call him a Minister or a member of the executive council, does it matter?

When I was dealing with the non-self-governing self-governing state the hon. member interjected and said it still did not matter.

He was speaking about Ministers.

The hon. Deputy Minister for South West Africa Affairs now says that it does matter. Let me ask the hon. the Deputy Minister this: Does the hon. Deputy Minister think it matters whether you call it self-governing or non-self-governing? Does the hon. Minister for Bantu Administration think it matters? The Minister smiles but he is not prepared to tell this Committee, this Committee which is being asked to pass this clause which establishes a self-governing territory, whether it matters whether you call it a self-governing or a non-self-governing territory. But the member for Standerton says it does not matter. The Deputy Minister for South West Africa Affairs apparently says it does matter, because he is the Deputy Minister for another part of South Africa which has another status. He realizes therefore that words have a meaning when you use them in legislation. The hon. member for Standerton is so taken up by his Government’s habit of making words mean what it wants them to mean, that he says it does not matter. The Deputy Minister realizes the importance of this term “a self-governing territory”.

He never referred to that.

I am dealing with this clause, at a later stage we will deal with a different clause which creates a Cabinet with Ministers comprising that Cabinet. At the moment we have not got to the Minister or the Cabinet. I am dealing with what sort of state this is with which we are dealing. It is of vital importance that before this House votes upon this clause it should have the answer to this basic question: Is the Transkei territory hereby established self-governing or non-self-governing? If it is self-governing we must know exactly what those words mean. We have accepted the principle that it is self-governing and we consequently want to know what the words mean. According to the member for Standerton “self-governing territory” means a territory which does not have complete control over itself and therefore is not self-governing. That is the gist of the member’s argument. You cannot have it both ways, Sir. It is either self-governing or it is not self-governing.

Read the definition.

There is no definition but there are restrictions. Restrictions are placed upon the power of the Parliament which will control this territory. Those restrictions, therefore, limit the sovereignty of this Parliament to be established.

You cannot limit sovereignty.

We are getting further. The hon. member says you cannot limit sovereignty. Therefore, the hon. member for Standerton recognizes that this Parliament will have no sovereignty. It cannot have sovereignty if sovereignty cannot be limited. If you cannot limit sovereignty, and there is a limitation on this Parliament, therefore this territory has no sovereignty. If it has no sovereignty then how can it be a self-governing territory? This expression “self-governing” is not a new expression in constitutional history. It is not a new word which the Minister has plucked off one of the thorn trees in the Transkei. It is a word used throughout in the development stages of nations in a historical content. It has a meaning. We have had self-governing colonies in our own country. “Self-government” is a step along the road from a colony to ultimate independence. “Self-government” is an intermediate step between colonization and ultimate independence.

What is wrong with that?

Does this step imply that this territory is in the context of a colony? These are important issues. If it implies that we are creating a colony …

Is a province a colony of the Republic?

A province does not have self-government. Thanks to the assistance of the member for Standerton we are beginning to get down to the real issue. What are we being asked to create? A province with provincial government, a colony with self-government, or a non-self-governing territory which is part of South Africa? It must be one of those three things. I am therefore going to ask the Minister whether this is colonial development, whether it is a non-self-governing self-governing territory or whether it is merely a provincial council, a part of the Republic of South Africa. [Time limit.]

I rise to try to clear up the confusion. The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) spoke about the government of a territory. His point was that it does not matter whether one calls it an executive body or Ministers. He did not talk about territory at all. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) then alleged that the hon. member for Standerton had stated that there was no difference between a territory and a state. That is the point which I wish to clear up.

I wish to say to hon. members opposite that in my view if this clause is left in this Bill they will be dishonouring the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. I should like to refer hon. members to the provisions of Section 114 of the Constitution which is a provision which was deliberately inserted and intended to be respected, and it reads as follows—

I would like immediately to set at rest the mind of the hon. member for Heilbron, because I do not agree with the statement that has come from the other side of the House that in effect is being done is to create a province. I do not wish to advance that point at all. But what I do say is that the provisions of this clause, which is one of the main operative clauses of the Bill, has the effect of removing from the jurisdiction of the Provincial Council of the Cape Province, the area which is defined in this Bill and which is referred to in Clause 1. I am sure that no hon. member will deny that in respect of matters covered by this Bill there is vested in the self-governing territory now being established in terms of Clause 1, powers of legislation as appear in later clauses of the Bill. I do not wish to go into them in detail, but in so far as they are given the right to do certain things in terms of this Bill, powers are being taken out of the hands of the Cape Province, and in the result will if they support the inclusion of this provision in the Bill, act in direct defiance of the Constitution of the Republic. I do say in all seriousness to hon. members, and I say it especially to the hon. member for Standerton, who was also one of the members of the Select Committee that dealt with the form of the Constitution as we have it enshrined in legislation to-day, that I for one always hoped that the provisions of that Constitution, whatever may be the legal effect, would be honoured in the spirit of the ultimate extent, and I say that this provision which we are considering at this moment is in breach not only of the spirit, but of the letter of the Constitution which we adopted at the creation of the Republic only two years ago. I hope that hon. members opposite realizing that that is the position, will assist us on this side to remove Clause 1 from this Bill.

Let me pay the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) the compliment of accepting that a province is being created. I do not accept that, but let me, for the sake of argument, accept that a province is being created. Then he contends that we offend against Section 114 of the Constitution. The hon. member ought to know better. If he refers to the powers that are conferred upon this new legislative assembly (I am referring to Annexure No. 1), he will see that there will be a division for finance, there will be a division for justice, a division for education, and a division for internal affairs, agriculture and forestry and a department of roads and works. The only power of a province that may perhaps be affected by this, will be that in respect of roads and works …

In other words, it will only be a trivial inroad.

Of such a trivial nature that one cannot go to the Cape Provincial Council and say: “Look, have you any objection to us now giving the Transkeian authority this power in connection with the construction of roads?” When one governs a state, one should not take notice of trivialities. It will remove a burden from a province, a very onerous burden.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Can the hon. member explain to me the meaning of the word: “abolish any provincial council or abridge the powers conferred on provincial councils under Section 84”?

Order! I shall allow the hon. member for Standerton to reply to that, but I should like to point out to both hon. members that they are again arguing on matters of principle.

I am quite in agreement with you, Mr. Chairman but I shall reply to that question. Thank you very much for the indulgence. I have stated that there is a wellknown rule of law, namely that the law does not take cognizance of trifles, and when one is dealing with a big matter, it is obvious that when in regard to a matter such as this there is a network of powers and of interests, one cannot single them out here and there. It would mean, if the hon. member is correct, that before we could proceed with this most important legislation, we must first of all go to the Provincial Council and ask whether they approve of it. I say that is a triviality. Besides, Parliament has the power, without breaking the law, to amend Section 114 merely by a contrary line of conduct.

That brings me to the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). Mr. Speaker, if he reads his Hansard report to-morrow, he himself will come to the conclusion that he missed a farce merely because he did not hear it. Let us put it very plainly. We call our provinces provinces, but in Section 84 of the Constitution there is a list of the provincial powers; our Appellate Division has held that the powers of a province within that framework are as full and as sturdy as the powers of Parliament. If the hon. member knew something about constitutional law, he should go and refer to the case of Middelburg Municipality V. Gertzen. I do not have the reference but I think it is in the 1913 A.D. reports. I did not think anybody would be such a fool as to raise this point.

Order! The hon. member may not refer to another hon. member as a fool.

I withdraw; I mean “ignorant The point is that within that area of jurisdiction that has been entrusted to them as self-governing areas, our provinces are self-governing areas, subject to the other powers of the Republic, that is to say, Parliament and the Executive Authority as we know it. Now you must forgive me, Sir, If I make another remark in this connection. The hon. member for Durban (Point) is now sitting there poised to say that I am the one who has equated this self-governing territory of the Transkei to a province, and then he will conclude: “Ergo, the Transkei is now a province also”. This then becomes their premise as if I had said that. The point is that if it is a province, it is something entirely different from the existing provinces in any case, something with a different content. We cannot call the Transkei a province, for the very simple reason that the word “province” has acquired a certain connotation in our law, in our language medium colloquially, and if we were to use that expression here, it would not be a permissible use in our legal system. That is why we use “self-governing area”. I told the hon. member for Hillbrow when he asked me: “Why do you refer to Ministers?” that he could call them what he liked; but in this case also, if he can produce a better word than “Minister” and “self-governing territory” I should like to hear it from him.

Will you be satisfied with “state”?

Of course I cannot be satisfied with “state”, for the simple reason that the word “state” has a different meaning. It means that there is a certain territory with a certain nation, a state nation, with a certain administration, that is recognized by other states. That is what a state is. The hon. member does not know his Afrikaans, and is not conversant with constitutional conceptions. [Interjections.] Why do hon. members interject so much? I repeat that I cannot use the word “state” because “state” has a different meaning from that of “self-governing territory”. But take the “dominions”. They received the name “dominion”, but they were embryonic states in embryo. But if you wish to use “embryonic state”, I shall accept it. You could also say that Transvaal is a state in embryo if an inclination to secede becomes apparent. In Natal that was the case. The embryo will probably never become larger than that, and more likely it will become smaller, but that is the position.

Now you are being insulting.

No, but the hon. member sees now into what strange paths he can be led astray by the ignorance of his colleagues. I am not insulting, and I am merely saying that if you wish to call it an “embryonic state” it will not bother me, but the proper word to use now is “self-governing territory”. Its powers are defined in this schedule. These are different powers to those of the provinces. The territory is subject to all the authorities of the Republic who handle the authority of this territory.

By the process of elimination, we are getting somewhere along the road which was begun by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) as to just what sort of independent dependency this self-governing state will be. The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) has eliminated the concept of “a state” because that connotes independence; he has eliminated the concept of “a province” because nobody, Sir, could possibly call a province a “self-governing territory”, and one is left with the problem of trying to find some sort of existing community or territory, entity, which falls within the category outside of a province, outside of an independent state, but which is still a self-governing territory with some limitations on its authority. Sir, if it is not a state and if it is not a province, the nearest thing to which one can equate it is the territory of South West Africa. There you have a territory, not a state, not a province, but a territory, something different from both; there is a limitation on its sovereignty and yet it has self-government within the concept put forward by the hon. member for Standerton. I need not elaborate on what a misfortune it would be if that hypothesis were correct, that is to say that it is correct that this new state is to be something very similar to what South West Africa is at the present time. One does not have to elaborate on the difficulties, the dangers, which will stem from that situation, and one does not have to paint in any vivid colours the sort of snare into which we are putting our heads by the creation of an entity which is not a province, which is not independent and is not a state, but a territory almost analagous to South West Africa. That is the thing we are creating. That is an example of the unwisdom of the sort of thing that we are creating. But, Sir, how can one test the wisdom or the unwisdom of the time at which we are doing this creating. We are doing it at a time when the territory that we are dealing with is in a state of emergency …

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to continue on those lines.

Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with a clause which contains the words “the territory” as being something which is to be created a “self-governing territory…

Order! The time to discuss that was during the secondreading debate.

Sir, it has not been decided when this will take place. That depends on when this legislation is passed, and, secondly, when this piece of legislation is promulgated, and thirdly, when it is implemented. None of that has been decided at the second reading.

But it is not in the clause either.

None of those things, either the passing of this legislation, or its promulgation, or its implementation was dealt with at the second reading. But whilst those things were not dealt with at the second reading, and are not part of the clause, it is the intention, according to this Clause 1, to give to a territory, namely the Transkei, self-government, to create it a self-governing territory, and Sir, with respect, in those circumstances, I can discuss the climate, the timing, and so forth …

Whether the time is opportune for the passing of the principle was decided at the second reading.

Sir, I am not speaking of adopting the principle of self-government. I am speaking of the time of putting into effect what we are creating in Cluase 1.

No, I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss that.

It is very difficult to know what one can discuss.

The hon. member can discuss the details of the clause.

Very well, Sir, I will discuss the particulars which arise from the fact that in terms of Clause 1 the Transkei shall be (which indicates the future) a self-governing territory. The territory which we propose shall be self-governing is at the present time subject to Proclamation 400. That proclamation approximates so far as the territory is concerned to a state of emergency.

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, if one cannot discuss that, I will proceed to discuss the nature of the territory which is to be created a self-government territory …

According to the provisions of this Bill.

Sir, the hon. member has a tremendous insight into this matter. The normal requisites for stability when one creates a self-governing territory is a territory with an economy which produces an income upon which the state …

Order! I am afraid the hon. member cannot discuss that.

Mr. Chairman, surely one can discuss the position of the territory which shall in terms of this clause become self-governing.

Order! The hon. member must not argue with the Chair. He must accept my ruling and abide by that.

I wish most strongly to abide by your ruling, but I would like you to guide me on this if you will: As to why one cannot discuss the territory which in terms of Clause 1 is to be called a self-governing territory.

Order! I have ruled over and over again that the hon. member cannot discuss those matters and I have given the reasons. The hon. member must now please resume his seat.

As I understand hon. members opposite, they want a definition to be given in advance, or the meaning to be given of the word “self-government”. Sir, you were quite right in your ruling that Clause 1 is the crux of this Bill. There are two concepts in Clause 1. The one is “self-government” and the other is “a territory”. The term “self-government” determines what the content is of self-government. It may vary. One may have a state where self-government s minimal, or a state where self-government is maximal. It depends on the number of powers granted to the particular government organ. And the content of self-government is to be found in the next sentence there, “in accordance with the provisions of this Act”. This Bill will determine the scope of the concept “self-government”, and hon. members cannot now in abstracto ask, “What is self-government?”. There must be self-government as provided for in this Bill. That is the essence of the whole matter. I cannot understand why these lengthy arguments are now being carried on. Now I want to come to the second concept, “territory”. The territory is the Republic of South Africa. Within the Republic of South Africa one has various governmental bodies. For one area one has a provincial body, for another area a different body or organ, and for this particular area we have something more than a provincial organ in terms of the provisions of this Bill, and one has to read the Bill to ascertain what the powers of the organ are of this particular territory within the Republic of South Africa. It is no use having a long argument on the matter. It is quite clear as it stands here.

This clause is a very short clause, but is a most important one, because in it lies the crux of this Bill; in it is created as a self-governing territory the Transkei. For that reason it is particularly important to know what is meant by “self-governing” in this context, because the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has correctly pointed out “self-governing” can be minimal and it can be maximal. There are different degrees of self-government. What it means in so far as this Bill is concerned is “self-government in accordance with the provisions of this Act. In other words, self-government to the extent that the subsequent provisions of this Act make it self-governing. So for that reason it is important to bear in mind, although I cannot discuss the further clauses in detail, what the subsequent clauses say. I challenge the hon. member for Standerton to deny it, and I also issue the same challenge to the Minister, that in Clause 37, what is given to the Transkei are powers in the five departments which the hon. member for Standerton read out which they can exercise beyond the control of this Parliament. In other words, in respect of those powers which they are given, they are completely sovereign, and that sovereignty is beyond the control of this Parliament. The only thing that remains within the control of this Parliament are the powers which are specifically reserved in Clause 39. But in respect of the five departments which are being handed over to the Transkei, the Transkeian Legislative Assembly will be able to exercise powers beyond the control of this Parliament, to the extent that the Transkeian Legislative Assembly will be able to make laws to amend Acts of this Parliament, and, what is more, to make laws which are repugnant to the Acts of this Parliament. I am pleased to hear that the hon. member for Heilbron, here on my left, says that that is correct, because in my view it is clear beyond doubt.

The hon. member for Standerton, in explaining what was meant by “self-government in accordance with the provisions of this Act”, tried to suggest that those powers were similar to the powers which provincial councils have at present. In other words, his argument was that certain powers are given to the provinces by Parliament and that in the exercise of those powers provincial councils are sovereign.

Not sovereign. Full and plenary.

I accept that. He tried to show the similarity between the provinces and the situation which is being created in respect of the Transkei. His argument was that just as the provincial councils have full and plenary powers in regard to those matters which have been handed over to the provincial councils, so the Transkeian Legislative Assembly will have full and plenary powers in respect of those matters which are to be handed over to them. But what the hon. member for Standerton fails to draw to the attention of this House is the fact that in respect of provincial councils this Parliament at all times retains its sovereignty and can at any time remove from the provinces the powers which it has given to those provinces. But the position is entirely different under this Bill, because the powers which are given to the Transkeian Legislative Assembly are given to it free of the control of this House, and are not subject to removal by this House and are not subject to supervision even by this House. So what is being created is a body which is quite different to the provinces which exist to-day, and for that reason this House should very seriously consider Clause 1, which has such far-reaching effects, effects which, I suggest, members on the other side of the House and the country generally will regret, and will regret very soon. For that reason I will vote against this clause.

It seems to me that we are making progress, because we have now reached the stage where we are looking for the meaning of the word “self-government” within the limits of the Bill and not outside it. That is, of course, as the hon. members for Heilbron and Musgrave have now agreed, the only way to do it. The self-government provided for in this clause simply means that in this territory a legislative organ, an executive organ and judicial organs are created with certain particular powers. What is provided for here, and particularly in the schedule, is the powers and functions, and that is the only meaning the word “self-government” as it appears in Clause I can have. The hon. member for Musgrave has now raised an actual point within the limits of this argument when, under Section 37, he quite correctly stated that the legislative organ being established by this Bill, in terms of the powers granted to it in the schedule, will be able to pass certain Acts dealing with—but this he. did not sav—matters affecting the Transkei or citizens of the Transkei, which may even be in conflict with Acts of this Parliament and which will then have priority. That statement must be strictly controlled with reference to the powers granted in the schedule. If one does that—when we reach that stage I suppose we will deal with the point in detail—one will see that those are powers which this House may safely grant to that body. Then I want to point out further that this instrument which is before us provides in Section 40 (2) (i) that all Acts passed by the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei will be submitted to the State President for approval. That point will also be discussed in detail when we come to it, but I just mention it at this stage to put a self-governing territory in the right perspective, as compared with the information the hon. member for Musgrave gave us about it.

I should like to return to this concept, and more particularly to the explanation of the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze). During his explanation of a self-governing territory, I asked him whether he could also call it a self-governing state, and he said no, one cannot do so. I should like to submit that the hon. member is not correct, and also differs from his own colleagues, particularly from his Minister of Information, and that is the objection we have to this conception, that we do not know precisely what a self-governing territory means. [Interjections.] As the hon. member has explained it, it is nothing but a difference between him and the hon. member for Heilbron; besides, the hon. member for Heilbron is much nearer the correct interpretation than the hon. member for Standerton is. What the hon. member for Standerton says is virtually that it is representative government. However, I say again that he differs not only from the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots) and the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), but also from the hon. Minister sitting in front of him. May I refer him to what the Minister says overseas? I am reading from the Christian Science Monitor of 1962:

That is why I asked him the question, and why we do not know what the precise meaning of “self-governing territory” is. Because there is the possibility that it may have such a dangerous meaning, and already have it, that the Transkei will have a greater status than our provinces, and that it is the penultimate step to final independence, because it may have that conception of “State” and according to their own advertisement overseas already have it, for that reason we shall vote against this clause. If it is as the advertisement says, then we on this side of the House are perfectly correct as regards our understanding of the words “self-governing territory”.

The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) is being politically obstinate. Does he want the term “self-governing territory” in Clause 1 to be defined? He knows that those words have to be read together with the words “within the Republic of South Africa in accordance with the provisions of this Act”. Why does the hon. member try to suggest that there is a difference of opinion on this side of the House in regard to the interpretation of the expression “self-governing territory”? He knows that it is a stage of self-government and we are not trying to shirk it. But their whole attitude is typical of the United Party’s attitude. They also acted in this way when the Whites in this country were undergoing their constitutional development. They acted as a brake then and they opposed those things and what they did then in regard to the Whites they are doing to-day in regard to the Bantu. When we come forward as the Christian White guardians of the non-White races and each by means of this Bill …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself strictly to the clause.

I am confining myself to Clause 1 which provides for a self-governing territory, but I see it against the background of the Bill. What we are giving the Bantu of the Transkei here is nothing but a constitution; this clause makes provision for a self-governing territory where they can have their own constitutional development. I justify Clause 1 on the ground that it gives them a claim to the inalienable right of every nation to manage its own affairs once it is able to do so, and that is what those hon. members opposite are opposing. This clause is the crux of the Bill, as the hon. member for Musgrave said. Take it out of the Bill and the whole Bill hangs in the air. That is why it is of so much importance. But we are not trying to avoid the consequences.

Order! I have not permitted hon. members opposite to cover a wide field and to make second-reading speeches and the hon. Chief Whip must also abide by that ruling.

Sir, I shall assist you and resume my seat.

I have seldom seen as much confusion in this House as prevailed on the Government side this afternoon in regard to the meaning of these words “self-governing territory” in this clause. I think the person who was most confused was the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze). He gave two definitions of this expression both of which were different. The one was an innocent one— that self-government there meant that a controlling mechanism was being set up subject to the provisions of this Bill. That is the definition which is given for the benefit of the Standerton constituency, where the Chairman of the local National Party Branch has resigned because of the confusion that that hon. member has created here. The other definition— that it is an embryonic state—is the definition which is given for the benefit of this House and that is where our difficulty lies. If the hon. member says that self-government means an embryonic state, we want to know a little more about it. What sort of embryo is it, a hare or an elephant, and what is the gestation period for such a state? But we come back again to this expression and we want to know whether “self-governing territory” means a state or not. I hope you will permit me to mention the authority of the hon. the Prime Minister himself who apparently differs from the hon. member for Standerton. I have here a report of an interview given by the hon. the Prime Minister in London in which he used the following words—

Now, is this a state, or an embryonic state, or a self-governing body, or a province or a colony? These are pertinent questions. Does it mean that this self-governing territory will have powers inferor or superor to those of a local government body?

It is in the Bill.

Does not “self-governing” mean that its powers will be greater or less than those of a province, or will they be the same? The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration said once that these powers would be similar to provincial powers, but Chief Matazima says “Aikona”. He says—

Is it a colony or not? Matanzima says that a self-governing territory means that it is a colony. Here are his words—

But when the United Party used the word “colony” in this House, the hon. the Prime Minister was more angry with us than I have ever seen him before. He said that we were accusing the Government of colonialism. According to Matanzima it is a colony, but according to the hon. the Prime Minister it is not a colony. What do these words mean? Is this the end of the beginning or the beginning of the end of a very dangerous development?

I do not think that the rules of the House will allow me to reply to the speech of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) because he covered rather a wide field. I smiled and I want to explain my action. I smiled about that “dagger” story—“the dagger in the heart of South Africa,” because this is the fourth time that I have heard it. We heard first of all that it was a dangerous “dagger” because the Transkei would be outside of South Africa, because it would be independent, and now we hear again that it is a “dagger” because the Transkei forms part of South Africa and is not yet completely independent of South Africa. That was why I laugned; it was not out of contempt.

Will the hon. the Minister answer this question? Will there be a diminution of the sovereignty of this Parliament in the Transkei if this Bill becomes law?

I will deal with that matter just now. [Laughter.] Quite a few hon. members raised that point. I just want to say that it is still my view, and the view of all on this side, that an Opposition is part of Parliament, part of the government of the country, and ought to be an important part. This Opposition has come to light with a demonstration in regard to sovereignty. I am very pleased that the lawyers retired very quickly and I am also pleased that they retired very quickly in regard to constitutional matters. But they were guilty of a demonstration which was really not to the credit of a responsible Opposition. When these speeches are read in the future in regard to this very important measure about which one cannot joke and laugh, as the hon. member for South Coast said, no South African who loves South Africa will read these speeches, because they do not reflect the slightest sign of a sense of responsibility and because a game is being played here of trying to split hairs on this clause. I ask any hon. member what the contribution of the United Party has been to this debate? This clause is very clear and straightforward. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) and the hon. member for Standerton (Mr. Coertze) made that very clear. There can be no doubt in this regard. But I want to say further that any person who has at least an elementary knowledge of constitutional law would not ask such a question. The clause deals very clearly with three things. In the first place there is the question of self-government; secondly, the question of the territory; and thirdly, there is the instrument that is made available. There can be no doubt in this regard. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) and a number of other hon. members said that they did not know what self-government meant. Can you really believe, Sir. that they can say such a thing after the matter has been put here so clearly that any child will be able to say immediately that the full meaning of self-government is contained in this clause? In other words, if the hon. member for Orange Grove is really in earnest, I must accuse him of not having read the Bill, because any child who reads the Bill will immediately say that this is the idea contained in this clause. There cannot be any other meaning of it. [Interjection.] Hon. members ask what the meaning is, but they must read the Bill. The whole Bill reflects that idea and there can be no disputing the fact. The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) is a lawyer and ought to admit that considered from a purely legal point of view this is its meaning. I am not a lawyer, although I passed my law examinations. He will admit that one cannot attach any other meaning to it than the meaning contained in this clause. The hon. member for Standerton made no mistake. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) did make a mistake, because he said that the Transkei was not even being governed as a unit. That is not so. There are various ethnic groups for the various territories and they have been in control for a long time. Since 1930 the Transkei has been governed as a unit by the Bunga.

But I come now to the questions asked by the hon. member for Germiston District. The hon. member asked whether this detracted at all from the sovereignty of this Parliament.

I do not think that there is a lawyer here who will maintain that that is the case. No, the hon. member chose his words very carefully. He said that this was an assault on the sovereignty of Parliament. The rules of this House will not permit me to discuss this matter, but no lawyer of repute can make an accusation of this nature, because this Parliament is sovereign and this sovereign Parliament gives that territory the right to have a form of self-government. The sovereignty of this Parliament is not affected in the least in that regard. I do not want to use legal arguments because there are lawyers here who can do so better than I can, but this is an elementary fact that no one can deny. All that this Bill seeks to do is to give those people some form of government; self-government will develop gradually. I say again that hon. members cannot infer that this clause is even slightly ambiguous and say that they cannot understand the clause. If they do say so there is only one answer, and that is that they must go home and read the Bill and then we can continue the discussion.

I am very grateful to the hon. the Minister, who has now stated categorically that there is no diminution of the sovereignty of this Parliament in the Transkei when this clause becomes law. I do not want to put words into the mouth of the hon. the Minister. If this clause becomes law and creates the self-governing territory of the Transkei, the principle of which was approved at the second reading, there is no diminution of the sovereignty of this Parliament in the Transkei. I think that is what the Minister said.

Not in the Transkei; here.

No, my question applies to the Transkei. I said when this Bill is passed and this clause becomes law, will there be a diminution of the sovereignty of this Parliament in the Transkei? When a Parliament in the Transkei, in terms of this law, takes over legislative powers, will there be a diminution of the sovereignty of this Parliament in the Transkei? In other words, will we be sharing sovereignty in that territory? I understood the Minister to say no, there will be no sharing and no diminution of the sovereignty of this Parliament in the Transkei. Now, in that case may I ask the Minister why this Bill makes provision for the Transkei Parliament to repeal the laws made by this Parliament? If there is no diminution of our sovereignty, what kind of super sovereignty does the Parliament of the Transkei get to repeal the laws made by this Parliament in so far as they apply to the Transkei, or even outside, where they are applicable to the citizens of the Transkei? Then I must say that the Minister’s reply to me now leaves me completely in the dark. I wonder what kind of legislative creature we are creating. What was the legislative creature the principle of which we accepted at the second reading when the Minister said there was no diminution of sovereignty and no sharing of sovereignty, but that legislative body can repeal our laws? We must be careful and if that is so we must tell the people in the Transkei that they will have no sovereignty whatever in their own country in terms of this clause. We must remember, with reference to the test that was made in the past in regard to the provinces, that the courts have held that within their sphere of legislation, before the days of the Republic, they were the Crown, and this Parliament was also the Crown in South Africa. Since getting the Constitution of the Republic, they are the State and they still sue as such for the purpose of those matters falling within their jurisdiction. So now, where do we go? The provinces cannot legislate to repeal laws of this Parliament, but this body will have that power. This form of self-government will give the Transkei powers that no province enjoys, because the Transkei can repeal our laws but the provinces cannot. The Provincial Councils are part of the State, but the Minister says this Parliament in the Transkei will not be part of the State, and it will be a body which has no share whatever in the sovereignty of South Africa, not even in its own territory; it is a body completely subordinate, something like a town council, but it cannot sue as the State. I want to pursue this a little later. I want the Minister to revise his opinion and I want to give him the opportunity to do it. He will find himself in great difficulty even if those people are given just a small scrap of sovereignty—even a very small bit indeed, like the nursemaid’s baby.

Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that the Minister would explain something which his colleagues on that side have tried for a hundred minutes to explain—and failed to explain. When the Minister says that any child can understand this, I say with respect that the first child who should be instructed in constitutional law is the hon. member for Standerton, because after having listened to the two speeches of that hon. member, you have at least five definitions of the meaning of “self-regerende gebied”. We want to consider carefully this Clause 1, which is part of a very long Bill which has 74 clauses, and two schedules. Sir, I must say that you must be quailing at the prospect of this debate going the way it has done on this one single clause.

Immediately prior to the adjournment, I pointed out that we on this side of the House had made several attempts to ascertain from the Government the meaning of “self-governing” and “self-governing territory”. The nearest we got to an explanation, Sir, was a series of definitions from the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze). He gave no less than five, possibly six, definitions of the term “self-governing”.

You must read the other provisions of the Bill.

I know the hon. the Minister when he spoke said to us—

But. Sir, we have read the Bill. The hon. the Minister himself has conceded—in fact, I think he made the statement voluntarily—that Clause I was the key to the whole Bill, but if we cannot be shown the key in such a form that we can see it, then surely it is of no use the hon. the Minister or anybody else on that side telling us to read the Bill. If this clause is inexplicable, then nothing is explicable. That, I submit with great respect, is the true position.

In trying to understand this, one, of course, tried to follow the arguments of the hon. member for Standerton. He has given us five, possibly six. definitions. At the end he played his trump card and said: “A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.” But he misquoted. He should have said:

Just as he misquoted Shakespeare, so he misquoted his constitutional law! I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that I have here, from my fairly extensive collection, six official publications of the Government dealing with the subject of the Transkei and the proposed change there. I want to give some examples of the way in which the National Party have merely developed a sort of jargon about this, a sort of name-calling episode in which one thing cancels out another. I want to tell you, Sir, in a few words what each of the publications says.

Are you talking Government policy now?

I read Government policy; I try to understand Government policy. Fact Paper No. 102, published in June 1962, refers to “self-determination”; the Digest of South African Affairs, dated 29 January 1962, refers to The Transkei leaders will meet in Umtata in a week’s time to make their constitution for self-government.

Here is another publication called “Die Transkei”—a very glossy one, Sir, which should enlighten the tax payer, who pays a considerable proportion of the cost of this publication. On the back page of this publication under the heading “slot”, there is the following—

Here it is “self-bestuur”. But here I have an even glossier publication called Panorama, of March 1962. The opening sentence, on the page I am looking at, reads—

On the following page it goes on and refers …

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I should Very much like to have your ruling on Clause 1. Is the hon. member entitled to treat policy declarations published from time to time as a background in relation to this clause, and especially in relation to the phrase “self-governing territory”? The words “self-governing territory” must be seen in relation to the provisions of the Bill, and if you, Sir, are going to allow the hon. member to talk incessantly about statements which were issued from time to time, these discussions will be prolonged interminably.

Order! The hon. member for Hospital may proceed.

I was about to refer to a sentence on the ensuing page of this publication. I am not going to read it all for the benefit of the Chief Whip, Sir, but at least he must bear with me as far as these quotations are concerned, because they are relevant. At any rate, the sentence I want to quote is—

Die Wetsontwerp op die Bevordering van Bantoe-self-bestuur wat in 1959 aangeneem is, het die weg vir die staatkundige emansipasie van die Bantoe oopgestel en die onomwonde versekering van Regeringskant gebring dat hy voornemens is om selfbesturende Bantoe-eenhede te skep.

It does not say “self-regerende”. Here is another article called “Confederation—the ultimate design of separate development” published in the South African Patriot, which, although it is an anonymous article, was probably written by the architect of the “confederation”, namely the hon. member for Kempton Park. This contains a very lengthy version of the same thing, coming to the same conclusion. Then there is the publication called baNtu. This attempts to give yet another explanation, in an article which is besprinkled with pictures of the hon. the Minister—there are no less than eight of them! But despite all these pictures of the Minister, there is nothing in it which checks with the explanations we have had from that side of the House to-night about the meaning of “self-governing”. As a matter of interest, if the hon. member would look at that well-known dictionary, Bosman, Van der Merwe and Hiemstra. he would find that there is a very important difference between the word “bestuur” and the word “regeer”. Does the hon. member concede that?

“Selfregering” and “selfbestuur” mean the same; both words are governed by the word “self” and therefore mean the same. Did you look up what the word “self” means in “selfbestuur” and “selfregering”?

I am not quibbling about the meaning of the word “self”, Sir. Surely the hon. member knows what that means. The point at issue is this; the hon. member for South Coast raised a question, which was followed up by other hon. members on this side of the House, about the meaning of “sovereignty” in relation to the powers to be conceded in terms of the definition of a “self-governing territory”. That point has been raised, but despite the intervention of the hon. Minister, who is the architect of this plan— or the assistant architect, at any rate—that point has not vet been clarified. It is no use, Sir, asking, “What is in a name?” Sovereignty has certain connotations which no one can escape. For example, Webster will tell you, and I advise the hon. member for Standerton to have a look at it himself, that it means “supreme power, especially over a body politic”: in the ordinary sense of the word it means “dominion, sway”. Now, if this governing body has supreme Dower over another governing body, and we then say that we will concede certain of our powers to that governing body, then how can anybody say conclusively that there has been no diminution in the sovereignty of this body which has conceded some of its powers to the second body? [Time limit.]

My big difficulty with the hon. members opposite is that they have not read this Bill. We have just had an example of that. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) quoted here from every pamphlet that he could possibly lay his hands on, but not from this Bill. The provision in the Bill is very clear.

I want to come back to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). He asked me a very fair question. I have already replied to it, but perhaps I did not understand him too well. I understood him to ask me whether this Bill would detract from the sovereignty of Parliament. My reply to that was a definite “No”. It does not detract at all from the sovereignty of this Parliament. He then asked me a second question, whether the granting of self-government to the Transkei would detract from the sovereignty of this Parliament in the Transkei. My reply to this second question is also that there is absolutely no diminution of the sovereignty of this Parliament in the Transkei. I want to tell the hon. member why I say this. I come now to an old accusation that I have made against hon. members, and I do so with all respect—that they do not read. If hon. members had followed the developments of international law in this sphere, particularly in pursuance of the development of states, they would not have asked this question this evening. There have been interesting developments in international law on these matters. At the same time there have been a few interesting decisions by the International Court in regard to this sort of thing. What is this interesting development? In the first place the view has always been held that sovereignty is a rigid idea. But as a result of the development of the various states over the past decade—and I come now to one of the good things brought about in the constitutional development of England—the idea arose that sovereignty was not a rigid idea, but a flexible one. The result is that in international law to-day the view is held that a position may arise like the position we have in South Africa to-day; in other words, this Government has full sovereignty over the whole of the Republic of South Africa.

But what has the modem tendency been? The tendency is to create nationhood before statehood. That is the view held by judges of the International Court. Unfortunately, I do not have the various cases with me; I could have brought them with me. But hon members opposite who are lawyers ought to know this; they ought to assist other people in this sphere who are not lawyers. I say again: My reply to the hon. member for South Coast is that this Parliament retains its sovereignty over the entire Republic. It retains its sovereignty in respect of the Transkei as well. There is no diminution of the sovereignty of this Parliament in the Transkei.

But there is a further interesting development which is also acknowledged by the International Court. That is that the measure of self-government that the Transkei will receive will give them the right to lay claim to the fact that they also have a form of sovereignty. In other words: If a law of the Transkei were to come before the International Court, some form of sovereignty would be given to the Transkei. But at the same time, it must be submitted in its final form to the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. That is the attitude that is generally adopted to-day. I want to ask hon. members who are lawyers to make sure of that fact so that there will be no doubt in this regard.

Mr. Chairman….

Before calling upon the hon. member for South Coast to speak, I want to point out that I have allowed a wide discussion on this clause. The principle of self-government for the Transkei has been adopted at the second reading. The question of sovereignty is not under discussion now; it is not contained in this clause. I must ask hon. members, therefore, to confine themselves forthwith strictly to the clause and not to repeat arguments.

I should like to address you on that point, Sir. You said, Sir, that the question of sovereignty was not contained in this clause, but that is what we sought your ruling on originally. We are given a formula here, Sir, a “self-governing territory” and no one on the other side has been able to tell us what that involves. We have accepted the principle….

Order! The principle contained in this clause is that the Transkei is to be given self-government. Nothing beyond that.

That is so, Sir, but that is not defined. That is not defined….

I have allowed a certain amount of discussion and hon. members must now refrain from repetition.

With respect, Sir. I pointed out that in this Bill powers are given to the Parliament of the Transkei to repeal laws of this Parliament. Whatever a “self-governing territory” may mean and whatever its authority may be, there is no doubt on that score—that is a categorical clause in this Bill, namely that it can repeal the laws of this Parliament. And, Sir, we are entitled from this side of the House to find out from the Government what “self-government” means in this regard seeing that they have chosen not to define it. We have had conflicting statements from the other side, Sir….

Order! I have given hon. members ample opportunity and the same question has been asked over and over again and a reply has been given over and over again.

Mr. Chairman, on this point of order, Sir, I should like to point out that members are allowed to discuss the details of a clause. Now, one of the details of this clause is the question of self-governing territory. There has been considerable argument as to what “territory” means. Now the argument is what the word “self-government” means. The question is whether it means sovereignty or not. I submit, Sir, that when discussing the word “self-government” we are entitled to find out whether it means sovereignty or not. As the hon. member for Natal South Coast has pointed out, Clause 1, which we are discussing now, deals with a “self-governing territory” in accordance with the provisions of this legislation. Clause 37 (1) (b) provides that the new legislature which we are establishing here, will have power—

The Minister has addressed us on sovereignty and has told us of the latest development in this respect in international law. He said that first you must have nationhood and then statehood and then he himself said that there would be a form of sovereignty in the Transkei, but he also pointed out that that form of sovereignty would not derogate from the sovereignty of this Parliament.

I submit, Sir, that we are entitled to find out exactly what this term “self-governing” means because I want to point out to the Minister that the word “self-governing” is also used in another statute, i.e. the legislation which makes provision for the promotion of Bantu self-governing States. The word “self-governing” is used there as well. But here we have the expression “self-governing” without a definition thereof in the definition clause. Now we want to know what the difference is between the “self-government” to be given to the Transkei and the “self-government” given in terms of the legislation I have referred to. It must be different, Sir, otherwise the Minister would have proceeded by way of regulation in terms of that legislation to give the Transkei an ordinary form of self-government which was envisaged at that stage.

Therefore, Sir, I ask you to allow us to find out exactly what type of sovereignty is being given to the Government of the Transkei.

Order! I ruled that the only principle contained in Clause 1, was that the Transkei was to be granted self-government. What the interpretation and confines of that self-government will be, is to be found in the rest of the Bill. That is my ruling and hon. members must please abide by it. I am not going to allow further discussion and repetition on this question.

With very great respect, Sir …

Order! I have given my ruling and I have allowed more than one hon. member to argue the point of order.

With respect, Sir, I do not want to adress you on this point. I should like to put to you this point, namely that the hon. the Minister after a very long debate in which this matter was raised very early on, has now made a very important statement. I do therefore ask whether it is not right that we should be allowed to test that matter with the hon. the Minister …

Order! I have allowed ample discussion and hon. members must now refrain from repetition.

I asked you. Sir, for your consideration to allow me to ask the Minister, seeing that he has admitted that this form of self-government …

Order! Order! No …

But he has admitted that, Sir …

Order! The hon. member is a front bencher and I should not therefore like to ask him to resume his seat. He must abide by my ruling.

I asked you, Sir, for your ruling in regard to this very question at the start of the debate …

Order! The hon. member must please resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! The hon. member must discontinue his speech.

In that case, Sir, I want the Speaker called in and I move accordingly.

I am not prepared to accept the motion.

I wonder, Sir, whether the hon. the Minister realizes the important international consequences to South Africa of the statement he has just made. The Minister has said that this Bill for the creation of a self-governing territory in the Transkei does not in any way diminish the sovereignty of this Parliament. Then he proceeded to indicate that the form of self-government which this clause purports giving to the Transkei is in fact a form of nationhood which precedes a form of statehood.

On a point of order. Sir. Is it necessary to have this babble of noise behind us here?

Order, order!

Let me repeat, Sir. The Minister has stated that this form of self-government which Clause 1 purports giving to the Transkei is a form of self-government for nationhood which will precede eventual statehood under the sovereignty of the Republic.

Order! The hon. member is not abiding by my ruling.

I move that the Question be now put.

[Interjections.]

You are a coward.

… blooming Nazis.

On a point of order, Sir. Is the hon. member for Durban (Point) entitled to call an important member on the Government side a Nazi?

Order! Did the hon. member for Durban (Point) say that?

I said “blooming Nazis”.

The hon. member must withdraw that and apologize because it is wilful.

To whom must I apologize, Sir?

To Frankie Waring.

Order! The hon. member must apologize to the House.

I withdraw, Sir, and I apologize to the House.

On a point of order. Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Natal (South Coast has called the hon. member for Brits a “coward”. Is that permissible?

Did the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) call the hon. member for Brits a coward?

Yes, I called the Chief Whip a coward.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw, Sir.

Question put.

Tellers appointed.

Order, order!

Order! Will the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter) resume his seat.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Kimberley (South) had already risen, but did not have time to walk across the floor.

That is not true.

Order! After I have appointed the Tellers, an hon. member may not cross the floor.

On a point of order, the hon. member was just in the aisle …

Order! Where did the hon. member for Kimberley (South) sit? Will the hon. member for Kimberley (South) rise and indicate where he sat before he crossed over?

I got up when I tried to get through here … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

You damn liar!

Order! The hon. member for Somerset East must withdraw the words “damn liar”.

I withdraw those words.

The Committee divided:

AYES—74: Badenhorst. F. H.: Bekker. G. F. H.; Bekker. M. J. Η.: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C: Bootha. L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha. M. C.; Botha. S. P.; Cloete, J. H.: Coertze. L. I.: Coetzee, B.: Coetzee. P. J.; Cruywagen. W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet. C.: Diederichs. N.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.): Frank, S.: Froneman. G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hevstek, J.; Jonker, A. H.: Jurgens, J. C.; Kevter, H. C. A.: Knobel, G. J.; Labuschagne, J. S.: le Roux, P. M. K.: Loots, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais. J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert. D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel. J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall. J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie. N. C. van R.; Schlebusch. A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Smit. H. H.; Stevn, F. S: Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.: van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg. M. J.;van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee. H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk. G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wvk. G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

NOES—36: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Henwood. B. H.: Hickman, T.; Hourquebie. R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.: Lewis, H.; Malan. E. G.; Mitchell. D. E.; Mitchell. M. L.; Moolman. J. H., Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.: Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.;

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell. Motion accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1 put and the Committee divided:

AYES—76: Badenhorst. F. H.: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker. M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha. S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze. L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen. W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet. C.; Diederichs. N.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.): Frank, S.: Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hevstek, J.; Jonker, A. H.: Jurgens, J. C.; Kevter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais. J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.: Mostert, D. J. J.: Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.: Nel. J. A. F.: Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall. J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie. N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht. N. F.; Uys. D. C. H.; van den Berg. G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee. H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk. G. L. H.; van Niekerk. M. C.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wvk. G. H.; van Wvk. H. J.; van Zvl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Vilioen. M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

NOES—36: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field. A. N.; Gay. L. C.; Gorshel. A.; Henwood. B. H.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie. R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G. Lewis, H.; Malan. E. G.; Mitchell. D. E.; Mitchell. M. L.; Moolman. J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield. G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. R; Weiss, U. M.;

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 2,

Clause 2 defines the initial boundaries of the new Transkeian Authority. I say “initial” because this Clause also refers to Clause 3 which allows the boundaries of the Transkei to be altered. There can either be additions to the Territory or deletions from the Territory. Nobody believes that there will be any deletions from the Territory and I do not want to deal with the possibility of additions to the Territory because we shall deal with that under Clause 3. The areas as described in Clause 2 give that areas of the nine regional authorities. I have no complaint against the regional authorities as they are defined in this Clause. This Clause fixes the initial boundaries of the areas which will fall under the jurisdiction of this new government. The Minister has said that the Africans living in the Territory have accepted this new form of government; they are agreeable to it. I should, however, like to point out that it is not only Africans who are living in this Territory …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Clause.

I am dealing with the Territory itself, Sir.

Order!

When I want you to interfere, I shall ask you to. I want to point out that it is not only Bantu areas that are covered by this Clause. There are European and Coloureds who own their own property living in those areas, and I wish to deal with the position of those people.

This Clause deals with the description of the territories of the Transkei. It does not deal with the population of the Transkei.

I wish to object to the area which forms this territory. The area consists of Bantu locations and of trading stations which have free title and other stations which are held on long leases. I am discussing the constitution of this Territory. It does not consist only of Bantu locations. It is not all communal property. There are freehold properties in this area, Sir. and I am discussing that. I say that the people living in this area, living on the land is now to become subject to the jurisdiction of this government—I cannot discuss it under any other Clause—are White and Coloured people owning property in this area. They have been advised by the hon. the Minister that they will be foreigners in a foreign land. Although they own property they will be foreigners in a foreign land. He has told them that they will have to obey the laws of that new government as all foreigners have to obey the law in any foreign land. As far as these people are concerned …

Order! I should like to refer the hon. member to Clause 7 which deals with the citizens of the Transkeian Territory.

Clause 7 deals with the citizens of the Transkei. All Bantu living in the area are citizens of that area. But what I want to point out is that other people living in this area are not citizens of the Transkei but they are subject to the laws of the Transkei. That is why I am raising it here; they do not fall under Clause 7. This is the only place where I can raise their position. Although they are not citizens of the Transkei they will fall under its laws.

The Minister himself has admitted that nobody knows who will form the new government in the Transkei. No matter who forms the government, these people living on these properties in this area, are going to be subject to its jurisdiction. The point is this that they will have no say whatsoever in this self-governing State. They will have no voice in that Government; although they are resident in that area they will be voiceless. [Interjections.] I want to point out that the new government will be given certain powers to control certain matters, and that is what that hon. member does not realize because he has not read the Bill. That government is being given certain Dowers over which this Parliament of ours will have no say. We will not be able to interfere except through the State President.

Come back to the Clause.

I, as their representative, will have no say at all in the new parliament. As I said just now nobody knows who will form that government. We all hope, so does the hon. the Minister, that it will be a responsible government. I should like to point out that there has been no training for this type of government. It is a big jump which is being made. We on this side of the House are not opposed to giving a government in the Transkei more power to control its own affairs. The Minister says that all the Bantu in that area are prepared to accept that form of government. We do not agree with that, but suppose I do accept what the Minister says I want to point out that the other residents in the area have not been consulted at all and in fact they do not wish to fall under this new government.

You are now discussing the principle of the Bill.

I am not. I am discussing the people who fall under this Bill. The Transkei area as we know it to-day does not only consist of these Bantu areas. My friends, I am sorry, the members opposite are apt to think that because the White areas in the Transkei are excluded from this Bill all Whites and all Coloureds are excluded from the operation of this Bill. But if they study this Clause and look at a map of the Transkei they will find that they are wrong, that the Whites and the Coloureds who live in the rural areas, in terms of this Clause, are covered by the Bill. It is not right and fair that this Parliament should put those people in those areas under the jurisdiction and control of an untried and untested government, especially when we do not know who is going to take over that government. The Minister hopes that they will be responsible men but he himself has admitted in this House that he does not …

Order! I must point out to the hon. Whip that this Clause deals with the territorial boundaries of the Transkei. That is the only subject that is under discussion.

Sir, as I pointed out just now, within those boundaries are included …

Perfectly correctly, but the matter under discussion is the territorial boundaries. If the hon. member wants to subtract from those boundaries or if he wants to change those boundaries, he is in order.

What I am asking, Sir, is that the Minister must subtract and that he should not include in his boundaries the White trading stations …

Order! In that case the hon. member must move an amendment to that effect.

Without moving an amendment I want to talk to the Clause and suggest that the boundaries should be reduced …

Order! It is a matter of territorial boundaries. If the hon. member wants to continue along those lines he must move an amendment.

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member is dealing with the territorial boundaries of the Transkei. Surely the hon. member cannot discuss boundaries in relation to any land without relating it to land and to people. May I address you on a point of order. Sir, and suggest that the hon. member is allowed to use as his argument, as to whether or not the territorial boundaries should be altered or not, such factors as would influence the mind of the hon. the Minister to change those boundaries. And one of those factors deals with the incidence of a White population within those boundaries.

Order! I am prepared to allow the hon. member to move a suitable amendment. He must confine himself to territorial boundaries.

Mr. Chairman, may I take a point of order? This Clause does not only affect the question of territorial boundaries it affects also the question of political representation, the extent of the franchise, the question of citizenship …

Order! That was a matter for discussion at the second reading.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, I am taking a point of order. I am attempting to point out to you that on this Clause hangs all the other Clauses …

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I want to know quite clearly, Sir, since when has it been that one cannot talk on a Clause without first moving an amendment? Surely that is something we have never had in this House as far as I know …

Order! Provided the hon. member continues on suitable lines. He did not continue on suitable lines. Hon. members must now observe my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, Clause 2 merely defines the boundaries of the Bantu homeland of the Transkei. I do not understand the Opposition. They have challenged us time and again to define the borders of the Bantu homelands. Now that we are introducing a Bill to define the borders of the Transkei as a Bantu homeland they do not want to agree with it. Mr. Chairman, this clause is indispensable for the constitutional and political building up of the Bantu homelands in South Africa. It is for that reason that the Opposition are making so much fuss here this evening. I simply cannot understand why hon. members cannot realize that this clause deals with territorial segregation …

Order! The hon. Chief Whip is not confining himself to the clause either.

I just want to say that I am in full agreement with this clause which defines and describes the borders of this Bantu homeland. One must have territorial segregration in order to have race segregation, in order to have the necessary development of the races …

Order!

Sir, the hon. Chief Whip has told us that this clause lays down exactly what the boundaries are. We have always been told by hon. members opposite that it will be impossible for this side to maintain the number of representatives at eight. Will the hon. Chief Whip tell me …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to territorial boundaries.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the territorial boundaries very much. I want to consider the question of possible additions to or substractions from these boundaries. I want the hon. Chief Whip …

Order! That is dealt with in Clause 3.

Sir, with great respect, I suggest that the number of territories that will be included in the Transkei must be seen by reading Clauses 2 and 3 together. I think therefore that it is most material to know whether these boundaries will be able to be maintained as laid down here and to know whether there will be forces intending to enlarge those boundaries.

Order! That matter is dealt with in Clause 3. I have already directed the hon. member’s attention to that fact.

On a point of order, Sir. As I read Clause 3 it specifically lays down the methods that will be adopted to change the boundaries of the territory of the Transkei after this Bill becomes law. We are now dealing with the boundaries as laid down in Clause 2. I submit that we are surely entitled to suggest other methods of laying down these boundaries in Clause 2, boundaries, which after the Bill becomes law, may be altered, in terms of Clause 2, by the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei. Clause 3 has nothing to do with the change of boundaries which this House may now approve.

Order! I have already indicated that I am prepared to accept a suitable amendment to the territorial boundaries of the Transkei.

Clause 2 provides that the boundaries for the Transkei Authority—the new Authority to be constituted in terms of Clause 1—do not comprise the whole of the land in that area known as the Transkei. According to the description given here certain areas which are part of the land mass within the boundaries of the area known as the Transkei are excluded. There are the so-called White towns and villages. Those towns and villages are not embodied here, they are excluded, but other areas am brought within the ambit of the description in this clause. Those are the areas which belong to White and Coloured traders. They are brought within the ambit of this clause. One of the reasons why we must vote against this clause on principle is that in defining the boundaries of the Transkei, for the purpose of this clause, the Government has brought within the ambit of this clause those properties to which Whites and Coloureds have title, freehold title and in the form of long-term leases and so forth. That is our big objection to this clause, namely that while certain White areas have been excluded the ordinary areas, like the so-called trading stations, are included. Some of them are quite small communities. Those areas are brought within the ambit of the new Bantustan being created in terms of Clause 1. That is our objection to this clause.

I rise to refute the allegation made by the last speaker that pieces of land belonging to traders are now being included in this area. The position is that those areas have always formed part of what we call a Bantu area. One has to read the definition of “Bantu area” together with this clause. “Bantu area” is defined. The hon. member has suggested that the areas to which he has referred have never been Bantu areas. It is true that White people have freehold rights there but these areas have always been Bantu areas in the past and are still Bantu areas to-day.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) completely misses the point made by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). The point is this that citizens of South Africa, citizens who pay South African tax and who have done their duty to this country, are, in terms of the provisions of this Bill, being placed in an area which is under another government with limited power at this stage and which, on a declaration by this Government, will eventually have more complete, powers given to it. It is clear, therefore, that this Government, in passing this Bill in this form, is placing White South African citizens …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the question of boundaries. I have allowed the hon. member for South Coast to state the Party’s objections. The point the hon. member wants to make is a repetition of what the hon. member for South Coast has made. That is a second-reading matter. I am not prepared to allow it to be discussed in Committee.

It may perhaps be as well for me to give a short explanation. It is very clear that this clause deals simply and solely with the boundaries. It has nothing to do with the people living in that area. The question of the people and so forth has probably been discussed here three or four times. It was discussed during the second-reading debate and on other occasions as well. As far as this matter is concerned, the borders of the Transkei are very clearly defined, but this is nothing new. They are defined in this Bill in precisely the same way as they were defined in Section 2 of Proclamation No. 180 of 1956.

No.

That is the trouble with the hon. member. He has not read it. This matter is defined in the same way in Section 2 of Proclamation No. 180 of 1956. This is the area that is defined there as being a Bantu area and it is a recognized Bantu area. This Bantu area is defined in Clause 73 (ii) of the Bill. Let me quote this definition—

I want now to quote from these Acts so that hon. members will understand the position. Most of the hon. members who have made such a fuss here have not read these Acts. Section 25 (1) of Act No. 38 of 1927 states—

1. (1) The scheduled or demarcated areas as defined in the schedule to the Natives Land Act, No. 27 of 1913;
2. (2) The area declared to be a trading area in terms of a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of Act No. 18 of 1936 states—

1. (1) All land of which the Trust is the registered owner;
2. (2) All land in a released area of which a Bantu is the registered owner or which is registered in the name of the Minister or a person in trust for a Bantu, Bantustan or community or which is registered in the name of a deceased Bantu.

Section 19 of Act No. 41 of 1925 reads as follows—

In Section 19 of that Act, “Native Locations” are defined as follows—

1. (1) Land issued or reserved by the Crown for the preservation or use of Native communities;
2. (2) Crown land occupied by Natives under conditions of communal ownership for which rental is not paid to the State;
3. (3) Land held by a mission society or a religious body doing educational or mission work amongst the Natives living there unless such land is exempted by the State President.
4. (4) Any other area declared by the State President to be a location excluding urban or municipal locations, certain mission stations or reserves and such other land as the Minister may approve.

This therefore is a very clear picture that has been formed over the years. I say again: No new boundaries are being demarcated. Hon. members who contend the opposite are completely wrong. All that is being done here is that the boundaries as defined in Section 2 of Proclamation No. 180 of 1956 are being laid down. Nobody in this House has ever objected to those boundaries. To-night is the first time that I have heard that there are people who are under the impression that new boundaries are being defined. Nothing of that nature exists.

Sir, the Minister has referred us to the definition of “Bantu Areas” as contained in this Bill. He suggested that we have not read it. We know all the definitions of “Bantu Areas” contained in Clause 73 (2). The Minister has told us what “Bantu Areas” are. Nobody is arguing with the Minister as to what the definition of “Bantu Areas” was before this Bill was introduced. Nobody is suggesting that the Minister is adding to the definition of “Bantu Areas” and that he is including new areas in the definition of “Bantu Areas”. Our complaint is this that in defining the area over which the Transkeian government will have control this sub-section (2) defines the area, not the boundaries, because the boundaries are very uncertain in some places. The boundaries are not set. My objection is this that within those Bantu areas there are properties which are occupied and owned by people other than the Bantu.

Order! The hon. member …

I want to point this out to the Minister, Sir. We are not saying that the Minister is adding to the Transkei. What we object to is that when these definitions of “Bantu Areas” were made before, they were not made with the object of giving that area self-government. In defining “Bantu Areas” as it appears in this Clause 73 (2) there was no implication then that any area which was defined as a Bantu area would eventually find itself in a self-governing State. When those Banut areas were described there was no objection on the score that they would be cut out from the Republic and treated as a separate state under a separate government. This is the first time that we have that suggestion in this Clause, namely that they are going to become an area of a separate self-governing State. What we are objecting to is that in the definition of “Bantu Areas” are areas which are not in the true sense of the word Bantu areas in that they are not owned by Bantu. It did not matter in the past when the word “Bantu Area” was defined what areas were included in that area because there was no suggestion that the inhabitants would ever find themselves as foreigners there. I want to point out to the Minister that he himself, in a letter to the liaison committee said that these people who lived in those areas were going to find themselves as foreigners in a foreign State. That is why I am raising this point. This is the only Clause under which I can raise it.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the question of boundaries.

Anyhow, I hope the Minister has got the point now. He has missed it before; and I hope he will now reply to us.

I want to reply to the question of the hon. member, my reply is as follows: In the first place this is of course a matter which has already been explained very clearly from time to time and I do not think that hon. members are unsure of what the position is in this connection. But it is a fact that in this area which has always been a Bantu area certain White people have been permitted to obtain certain rights there, freehold rights. Those rights exist and our policy in respect of those people is merely that that area is a Bantu area although the people who stay there remain citizens of the Republic of South Africa.

Order! I regret that the hon. Minister may not go into that matter.

This clause lays down that the area of the Transkei shall be … and then it lays down each of the Regional Authority areas, and the words used here are—

1. (a) the Dalindyebo Regional Authority area comprising Bantu areas in the districts of Engcobo, Mqanduli and Umtata …

I want to refer to the term “Bantu Area” which the Minister discussed at such length a moment ago. Obviously we have all read the definitions and we know the textual definition.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether that applies to the Bantu areas as they exist when this Bill becomes law. When this Bill becomes an Act, will those Bantu areas then be closed, or as the Trust buys further ground and incorporates that further ground in Bantu areas, do those new areas automatically become part of the Transkei?

Read the Bill.

I am dealing with Clause 2 and Clause 2 lays down that the Transkei shall comprise of certain Bantu areas. Clause 3 lays down that additional areas may be excised or added only with the approval of the Transkeian Authority. But we will come to the excisement or exchange of land later. But when this Bill becomes law, it will read that certain Bantu areas are part of the Transkei. The point [ make is this: There are certain areas which are to-day Bantu areas. If to-morrow a farm is bought and it becomes part of a Bantu area, is it then going to be necessary to bring a resolution to this House to declare that one farm an additional part of the Transkei, and then take the resolution to the Territorial Authority? Or do the terms of this legislation, as I submit, mean that as soon as an area becomes a Bantu area in those magisterial districts, that area automatically becomes part of the Transkei? Is the position that neither this Parliament, nor the Transkeian Authority has any say over that? The reason I make this point is that the hon. Minister will remember that I put questions to him earlier this Session dealing with the boundaries which are incorporated in Clause 2 of this Bill, and I asked the Minister whether there was a map of the territory. He eventually admitted that there was one map, one single map.

No.

Yes, I asked him a specific question as to how many copies of the map of the Transkei were in existence. It is recorded in Hansard, and if the hon. Minister queries that I will get the exact quotation. I asked how many copies of the map of the Transkei were in existence, and he said “one”.

Not eventually.

No, that was a month ago. On the day I asked the question this Bill had already been drafted, it had apparently been passed by the Transkeian Territorial Authority but that Transkeian Territorial Authority did not have a copy of the map of the territory which they were to control, and this Parliament had before it a Bill in which we are to give away part of the fatherland of South Africa to a foreign state, yet we have never seen a map of that territory, which is now defined. I asked the hon. Minister if I could photograph the one map in existence. He had a copy made and brought down and I arranged to photograph that map with his kind permission. That map indicates a patchwork of white spots all over the Transkei: it indicates an isolated area of white farms, literally completely shut off from the rest of White South Africa, bordered on the one side by Basutoland and on the other three sides bordered by the Transkei which is now to become a self-governing state. There is another area of the Transkei completely geographically divorced from the rest of the Transkeian area. Therefore the Parliament of the Transkei to reach part of its own area defined in this clause, has got to go through part of White South Africa. It has got to move through White South Africa to get to the Umzimkulu District which falls under the jurisdiction of this Parliament. In that Umzimkulu magisterial district, which is defined in Clause 2, it looks, to use the colloquial expression, like a dog’s breakfast; it is a mixture of white, yellow, green and brown—white spots, green spots, yellow spots, each indicating a different type of ownership of land.

That is how you want the whole of South Africa to look.

In this Umzimkulu territory there is a conglomeration of White, Black, released and scheduled areas and there are Colouredowned areas. Some of these areas are at this moment in the process of being purchased, others have been offered for sale and the Minister’s Department has not yet bought them. Let us take one particular farm indicated on this map. When that farm, whose sale is being negotiated at the moment, is bought, does the Minister then come to this House and say “Here is a part of the Umzimkulu District, now a Bantu area, will you please pass a resolution, both Houses? And will he subsequently send it to the Transkeian Parliament to pass a resolution there? Obviously not. What happens is that that area automatically becomes part of the Transkei and that makes a mockery of Clause 3, because what it means is that areas presently White owned and occupied by Whites, without the approval of this Parliament or the Transkeian Parliament, in terms of Clause 2 will become part of the Transkei. Therefore Clause 3 is nothing but a bluff, or to be used when he gets outside the magisterial districts involved, when he comes to take the parts of Natal which as members are openly now saying obviously must become part of the Transkei. One glance at the map shows a finger of Natal between Umzimkulu and the Transkei which cannot humanly exist as a White area sandwiched between the territories of the Transkei. There is the whole of Mt. Curry and Kokstad which cannot possibly maintain its White character in a pincer, in a complete horseshoe of the Transkei. And when that transfer takes place the Minister will use Clause 3. But when he transfers White spots in the Transkei, those White spots will become Transkeian territory without reference to this Parliament. The hon. Prime Minister on the 2nd March, this year, under the heading, inter alia, “hulpeloos, maar geen wit kolle nie”, speaking of the Transkeian Whites, the traders who are thrown to the wolves said “hulle moet dus nie eis dat die Regering oral in die Transkei wit kolle moet skep waar hulle regte kan kry nie”. In other words, the Prime Minister has said that the Transkei trader, the White man, cannot expect White spots to be maintained. Now on this map there are White spots, and I submit that this clause that we are being asked to pass now, means that those White spots will be eliminated without reference to anyone, and the Whites who are living presently there will be abandoned without this Parliament having a single opportunity to protect them. [Time limit.]

It hardly seems possible that this Committee has had to listen to the remarks we have just heard. Clause 2 states quite clearly: “The Bantu areas which form the areas of certain regional authorities”, and once the State President has given his assent to this Bill, there will be certain Bantu areas which comply with this definition. And if transfer has already been taken of the farm that the hon. member has just mentioned and the farm has been bought by the Native Trust, then it complies with the definition of a Bantu area and it will be included under the provision of this Bill. If that has not been done, it will then fall under the provisions of Clause 3. One expects to hear nonsense of this kind from the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) but that his whole party should listen in silence and without a blush to what he has to say is something that I cannot understand.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Clause 2 deals with the area which will be covered by the new state. I should like to ask whether this area will have a capital, and what the capital will be, and whether that capital will belong to the Transkei? There are clauses here which deal with citizenship, the flag and the national anthem, but I should like to know what the position will be in regard to a capital for this area.

In reply to the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn), I want to say that I asked the question whether it meant that every sale of a farm would have to be approved by resolution in this House. If that is the case, then the second argument falls away, but then it means that every single one of these spots will have to be declared as an addition to the Territorial Area. But that means that the whole operation of the Native Trust is going to be hamstrung by the need for resolutions of Parliament before they can acquire land, because otherwise the Native Trust cannot negotiate and purchase land, if such land cannot be declared a Bantu area without the permission of Parliament. I do not want to develop that theme. I want to hear the Minister’s explanation of how he is going to handle this administratively. But what I do want to point out is that I wrote a further letter to the Minister, asking him to take further photographs of the Bantu areas adjoining and outside the Transkei. Because this is a matter of boundaries. And I received a reply from the Minister dated 15 April of this year, saying inter alia—

If that is the situation in regard to the other Bantu areas, if that is the situation in regard to the cartography section of the Minister’s Department, then how can we be asked as a Parliament to pass areas defined in a Bill when we know that this is the prototype of further legislation? And yet the Minister when we asked him to lay a copy of the map upon the Table of the House, refused my request. I asked him to lay a copy of the map of the Transkei on the Table of the House so that there would be no argument, so that it would be a clear defined black and white picture of what was the Transkei. I asked the Minister to lay it on the Table of the House that when we come to debate this Bill, this House and its members could then see in black and white what territory was being handed over. The Minister refused to make available to Parliament and its members a copy of the map of the Transkei. He let me as an individual photograph it, but that is not how you pass laws. We are the Parliament, and every member being asked to vote for Clause 2 should be entitled to say “I have seen the map and know what Clause 2 entails”. Not one of the members opposite. except the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) who trailed along behind me when I was looking and photographing this map like a little puppy, has seen the map of the Transkei. They do not know what area is involved. The only other map I have seen is this map published in Bantu, an official Government publication, of March 1963, and this map is incorrect. This map is not true. This map is a lie. This purports to be the map of the Transkei under the heading “Transkei legislation” and the Minister of Information’s Department publishes a map purporting to represent the Transkei and that map is either a lie or the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration’s map is inaccurate, because here I have the two maps The map of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development shows a section of White farms isolated and the map of the Department of Information shows a passage through, linking that area with the rest of South Africa. The Minister’s shows Umzimkulu as a patchwork of white and black; the Minister of Information’s map shows it as entirely Black with one White farm. The Minister of Bantu Administration’s map shows some 13 White spots, and the Minister of Information’s map shows eight White spots.

Just names.

Just names. I am glad the hon. Minister has corrected me. And this is how the public of South Africa are misinformed in regard to this clause which we are asked to pass. We are being asked to vote for Clause 2 and the Bantu of South Africa, and the public of South Africa are being given by the Minister of Information a picture of the Transkei which is not correct, which is inaccurate and false.

Do you really expect us to take you seriously?

I do not think the Minister could be serious. I do not think he can take anything seriously, but when he does not take the truth seriously, I take strong exception to that. If a Minister of this Government does not take the truth seriously, that is an important matter, because he has published a map showing the area of the Transkei and that map does not agree with the official map of the Minister of Bantu Administration. Whether the hon. Minister of Information thinks it funny to give inaccurate information, I do not know, but we on this side of the House are not going to be a party to the statement of the Prime Minister that he is to abandon the Whites in the White spots …

Order! That is not under discussion now.

I am referring to the White spots, Mr. Chairman, an area.

The Bantu areas are under discussion.

I am dealing with the Bantu areas and the vacuum which appears miraculously in between and surrounded by certain Bantu areas. We have a Bantu area for instance in the district of Mt. Fletcher. The Bill says that there is a magisterial district and the Transkei consists of the Bantu areas in Mt. Fletcher. Now on the map—because we are not discussing White spots—there is a vacuum, and I cannot discuss what does not exist. But it is an area which is not part of the boundaries laid down in this clause. It is not a Bantu area. If it is not a Bantu area, it must be a White area, and I say we are not a party to those White spots, with White people living in them, becoming vacuums that disappear. Secondly, we are not prepared to be a party to giving our approval to a measure like this with areas which even the Minister of Information cannot define for his own people. I believe it is utterly wrong that this Parliament should be asked to decide on an issue like that when Government members and their own Ministers do not know what they are voting for.

I am used to not receiving much political courtesy from the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). I do not pay much attention to that fact because we know that that is his way. The fact is that the hon. member asked me for a map and I told him that I only had the one map. I said that he was welcome to come and look at the map and that he was even welcome to make a copy of the map or to have photostat copies made of it. I received a very friendly letter from the hon. member in which he thanked me. I was very surprised to hear him say so sneeringly that initially— this was the impression that he created—I did not want to give him anything and that “eventually the Minister was prepared to allow me to take a photo”, The hon. member shakes his head.

I admitted that you were courteous and I said so in my speech.

The hon. member created the impression that I kept on putting him off in regard to that map and that initially I did not want to give it to him. The fact is that he was welcome to look at that map. To make this fuss here now about a map that was published in Bantu and which was not absolutely the same as the other map, is childish. That sort of thing does not redound to the credit of the hon. member. He ought to know more about maps than that.

But I want to come to a second matter. The hon. member asked me for maps of the other areas. As he correctly stated, I said that they were not yet ready and I gave him my reasons. But the hon. member did not take account of the fact that no day goes by that we do not buy land. We have not followed the practice of the United Party of not buying land for the Bantu. We are buying land daily. The maps of certain districts change by the day and we are always busy bringing the district maps up to date. The hon. member is quite welcome to take a photograph of any district map. But he will understand that it takes time to effect those changes on the large maps. One has continually to remain in contact with the Deeds Offices, with the officials and so forth. This takes time. But that does not mean to say that we cannot give a reliable picture of every area within a reasonably short space of time. My accusation against the hon. member is this: Is it fair to try to create the impression that we actually do not know what the maps of the areas in question look like? That is not fair. It does not behove the hon. member to use those methods. He cannot expect us to take him seriously any longer if he follows those methods.

I want to go further and I want to say that on previous occasions when Bills of this nature have been introduced no maps have ever been tabled in this House. That cannot be done because hon. members know what the difficulties are in regard to maps. That has never been done in the past. I want to make a further point: I want to wager that if we had tabled a map of this nature they would have studied it just as well as they have studied this Bill. In other words, they would have known nothing about it!

I want to come back now to the hon. member who asked what was going to happen in regard to the rest of the Trust land that had to be purchased in the Transkei. He asked whether the permission of this Parliament would first have to be obtained in regard to every farm that was purchased. When I quoted the relevant provisions, the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) stood up and said that he knew the provisions well enough. He had just finished saying that he had read the Act when he asked a question which showed quite clearly that he did not know what the provisions of the Act were. He has not read it. If he had read it he would have seen that the Native Trust and Land Act states clearly where the released areas are to be found. In other words, everything has been demarcated and the land that is purchased in those released areas is automatically included in the area in which it is purchased. The hon. member says that he has read the Act but he does not know what the position is. The Native Trust and Land Act of 1936 demarcates the released areas. There can be no doubt in that regard. But when land is purchased by the Department in other areas, what is the position? The hon. member now comes along and says that all the activities of the Trust have to be suspended and that no more land can be purchased, and then he says he read the Act! Can a person making such a statement have read the Act?

What about the farms of the Whites?

Wait a moment; I am still dealing with this other point. The hon. member said that he had read the Act; he knows that the activities of the Trust will not be suspended. Those areas have been demarcated in terms of Act No. 18 of 1936.

The released areas.

I come now to the land that does not lie in the released areas, land that is purchased from time to time. That of course will have to have the approval of this House. But what the hon. member forgets further is that a quota is laid down and action is taken in terms of the 1933 Act according to that quota. Viewed from this angle he has no problem either. But if in the future for example we say that the Whites at Umtata have decided to sell a portion of Umtata and that we are going to add it to the Trust land, then we must obtain Parliamentary sanction because that land is in a White area. The same applies to any other land in a White area. This point is quite clear because the Act contains all these provisions and we are adhering to the provisions of the Act.

I now come to the question asked by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), whether there is a capital city in the area and whether a capital city will come into being. I really did not know that we had such strangers in Jerusalem. There is no capital city in those Bantu areas as yet and the hon. member ought to know it.

Is it a State without a capital then?

The hon. member knows what the position is but this is typical of the game that is being played here. They ask about things that they already know about.

Where is that in the Bill?

Let me say that the question of the capital of the Transkei is something that they themselves will have to decide upon in the future. That is a question of development. That is why we have said that there has been no drastic departure from the present position. For all practical purposes many years may yet elapse during which Umtata will still remain the seat of government and I think that many of the Whites will be there for many years. But we cannot make provision for future development. But I do think that it is very clear that Umtata will still be used as the seat of authority for some time to come. If they decide later to choose a capital of their own, they will be free to do so. No town has as yet been designated to serve as a capital in that area. At the moment they are not considering having their capital at some other place and they are prepared to continue with things as they are at the moment.

I think that it is quite clear—and the hon. the Minister ought to know it—that if the Bantu in the Transkei want to choose a capital they will of course choose Umtata and once they have chosen Umtata they will demand that the Whites leave that area.

But I want to confine myself more to the wording of this particular clause. In Clause 2 provision is made for “the Bantu areas described hereunder”. In paragraph (a) mention is also made of “Bantu areas” and the same holds good for the other paragraphs. I contend that there is no clear definition in any of our statutes of what a “Bantu area” actually is. I want to prove it. On 22 March this year I asked the hon. the Minister whether any urban areas in the Transkei had been proclaimed Bantu areas for the purposes of any law. The hon. the Minister’s reply was in the affirmative and he told me that I think it was nearly two dozen urban areas in the Transkei, in other words, the urban areas including the White and non-White areas, had been proclaimed Bantu areas. Then the hon. the Minister told me that for the purposes of the Bantu Investment Corporation Act, 1955, Butterworth with 943 Whites and 1,200 non-Whites was a proclaimed Bantu area; Cala with 409 Whites and 1,300 Bantu was a proclaimed Bantu area.

In terms of the Bantu Investment Corporation Act.

Yes, I am coming to that. Mt. Fletcher with 152 Whites and 478 Bantu was a proclaimed Bantu area and Umtata with 3,449 Whites and 7,660 Bantu was a proclaimed non-White area, a Bantu area.

For what purpose?

For the purposes of the Bantu Investment Corporation Act. But now I want to ask the hon. the Minister where there is a reference to that particular Act in this Bill before us. A Bantu area is going to mean a Bantu area in terms of that Act as well. In this Bill mention is simply made of “Bantu areas”. What, for example, is meant by the expression “Bantu areas in the districts Engcobo, Mqanduli and Umtata?” Does this not also include the Bantu areas as proclaimed under the Bantu Investment Corporation Act for the purposes of that Act? Certain things can be done for the purposes of that Act in connection with labour, in connection with wages and in connection with other matters which may quite possibly make Bantu areas of Umtata and the other towns. I come now to the second point in connection with the hon. the Minister’s statement and that is: What is going to become of the large number of Black spots that we have in the Transkei? To what extent are they being included in the Bantu areas? The reason why I ask this is that I put two auestions to the hon. the Minister, one in 1959 and one this year. In 1959 I asked how many black spots there were in the Cape and his reply was, 63. I asked the hon. the Minister the same question this year. I wanted to know how many black spots there were in the Cape then and his reply was not 63, but 154!

Order! That matter is not under discussion now.

Do you know how many black spots there are in the Cape Province now? Not 63, but 154.

Order! The question of black spots is not relevant now.

I admit that the black spots outside of the area of the Transkei are not included.

The hon. member must confine himself to the clause. A very clear definition is given of a Bantu area.

May I ask then whether this definition of Bantu areas also includes that increase of 2\ times the number of black spots indicated and to what extent those black spots now also fall under the Transkei?

That is not relevant here.

Do you rule then that when mention is made here of Bantu areas that those areas do not include these black spots?

No.

So when mention is made of Bantu areas it does not include the black spots in those White areas in the Transkei? I accept your ruling but I want to ask the hon. the Minister this question. I am looking at the map that he issued. Of course, it differs from the map of the Tomlinson Commission and it differs from the map in the pamphlet that he issued for distribution in France, and it differs from a large number of other maps as well. We have had a very important report recently about the dangers in the neighbouring Protectorates. Is it true that because of those boundaries that he is laying down there will be no White buffer strip between Basutoland and the Transkei?

Order! That is not relevant.

Very well, then I shall content myself with that. It is very clear that the boundaries as announced by the hon. the Minister and as proclaimed by various commissions and as indicated by various speakers on that side of the House at various meetings all differ from one another so that we still do not know to-day what the expression “Bantu areas” in this clause means.

I can well understand that the hon. member will never understand it because they are people who seek to belittle Government policy. The hon. member has stated that for the purposes of the Bantu Investment Corporation Act I proclaimed certain areas in the Transkei to be White areas. The fact is just this. There are many Bantu in the Transkei who have their own residential areas in what are still White areas to-day and they very much want loans to build their own homes because they cannot obtain the necessary loans at other places. I felt that this was a very good cause and something that I wanted to encourage because the Bantu of the Transkei have contributed a considerable sum of money by way of investments to the Bantu Investment Corporation and I think that it is no more than right that their money should be used for their own development. In order to give effect to this I had to insert a provision to enable me to proclaim those areas to be Bantu areas because the Bantu Investment Corporation Act provides that such loans can only be granted in Bantu areas. It is therefore only for the Transkei that we are doing this and not for areas outside of the Transkei. This is being done simply to overcome the provisions of that Act and to render this service to the Bantu. I do not allow myself to be told that the hon. member does not know this. I am sure he is not so stupid.

Order! The hon. member is leading the hon. the Minister astray and the hon. the Minister must not follow him along the wrong path.

I am merely replying to a long statement made by the hon. member. I say that he knows what the correct position is. He has interpreted it wrongly here and I do not think that that is fair. We must try to act responsibly. Let us put our arguments in such way that they merit a reply.

I hope that the hon. the Minister, when he comments on this Bill … [Interjections.] … will remember that after he introduced the original Transkei Bill this side of the House realised within three days that it conflicted with the entrenched clauses, and I hope he appreciates that a Bill can be studied and understood by this side of the House. I hope he will bear that in mind when he criticizes any statement made by this side. But I particularly want to express my regret that we have not, when this Parliament has been asked to fix boundaries and to hand over an area to a new authority, got those boundaries on a map. The Minister will know that when any transaction in regard to land takes place, the exact boundaries of the properties in question must be available.

I also think it is most regrettable that these two maps, the one being the photostatic copy of the Minister’s map. and the other being the map put out by the Minister of Information, should differ.

Order! The hon. member is using arguments which have been used twice already.

I only want to say that I think that an explanation from one or other of these Ministers will greatly assist the House to understand why this has occurred.

The arguments that I have been raised here in connection with this clause really have nothing to do with the clause.

Order! The Chair will see to that.

Clause 2 is very clear.

It mentions all the areas in paragraphs (a) to (i), and the various areas have to be determined by this Transkei Constitution Bill. This is for administrative purposes and also for the purposes of future government. If a chiefs area cannot be determined, this constitution cannot function properly. That is as I read the clause and I do not think that the position can be otherwise. As far as the White spots are concerned, one has only to read Clause 60 and then the position becomes very clear. But this clause is very clear because in reality it only deals with the chiefs’ areas.

I do not want to prolong the debate on this point but I think that the reply of the hon. the Minister actually transferred the discussion to Clause 3, the changing of boundaries. He has stated clearly now that where unreleased land is taken over he will have to have a resolution of Parliament. If this is the position, then it falls under Clause 3 and not under Clause 2. But the point that I want to make is that if I gave the impression that the hon. the Minister was discourteous in regard to my request, I did not mean it in that way because I thanked the hon. the Minister specially by letter and in my speech this evening I again thanked him for his courtesy. My objection was that he was courteous to me as a person but that he did not make the map available to every Member of Parliament. If I created a different impression regarding the courtesy of the hon. the Minister I did not mean it in that way because he is always courteous. We are dealing now with a Bill and with principles that are very far reaching and we will discuss the matter further at a later stage.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

AYES—71: Badenhorst, F. H.: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Heystek, J.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder. C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall. J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

NOES—40: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock. H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell. M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell. Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 3,

Clause 2 lays down the provisional boundaries of the Transkei, subject to Clause 3, and Clause 3 enables the State President, with the approval of the House of Assembly and the Senate, to enlarge the boundaries of the Transkei. He can either add to it, or he can excise areas from the Transkei, provided other land of equal value is given in the place of it. We are not worried about the land which will be excised, because nobody believes that land will be excised, but what we are worried about is the provision which allows the State President with the approval of this House to add to the boundaries of the Transkei. That raises the important point as to what the boundaries of these independent states will be, and particularly of the Transkei. We have raised this point on several occasions. There must be some understanding between the Bantu and us as to where those boundaries will be. The Prime Minister was tackled on the subject on many occasions and the last time he spoke, in February 1962 he said—

Sir, that is what we have now in this Bill: we have the immediate borders. He then said—

When this Bill before us now was discussed by the Transkeian Territorial Authority, this question about the boundaries of the Transkei arose. They were not satisfied as to the description of the area in the Matatiele district, which will now be part of the Transkei. They wanted to know why the whole of the Matatiele area was not added, and the reply given by the Government official, the law adviser, Mr. Mills, to them was—

Accepting that advice, the matter was dropped. This is important, because this Territorial Authority which will now be the nucleus of the Government of the new state, in discussing the agreement they are making with out Parliament as to their constitution, came to an agreement with the official there that they would leave this over for negotiation; because it is only on his explanation as to why Matatiele and Mount Currie were left out of the definition of the area that they dropped the matter. Now I want to ask the Minister this. He will know that the Prime Minister and he himself and the Secretary for Bantu Administration have all given assurances to the people living in East Griqualand, to the White farmers there, that those areas which are not now included in the definition of the Transkei will not at any time be included. They were given the assurance that those White areas would remain White areas and would be left out of the Transkei. The question I put to the Minister is this: Is it fair, if he intends carrying out that promise, and the Prime Minister intends carrying it out, to leave the Black people in the Transkei under the impression that the future boundaries will still be negotiated? Either the boundaries will remain as they are in East Griqualand, or the Prime Minister and the Minister will go back on their word which they gave to the White farmers in that area and expand the borders and give the Transkei more of East Griqualand. The people naturally are very worried, and they are the constituents of the hon. member for Aliwal as well as mine. He has been asked to approve of this Clause 3 which allows the State President to enlarge the boundaries of the Transkei. Why I have raised this matter of East Griqualand is because this very point has already cropped up with the Territorial Authority, with the chiefs and the headmen who will form the nucleus of this new Government which is to be established. I would like the Minister to reply to us as to what he will do about that area, and what undertaking has been given to the chiefs and the headmen.

Having accepted Clause 2, I think those boundaries which are defined are just about as clear as mud to this House. The position there is this: Why could we not define those boundaries as we propose to define them in the next clause? I have dealt with this matter before with the hon. the Minister, but I want to ask him now whether he has come to a decision, and what impression he has given these gentlemen who are now staking claims for the land between the Fish and the Kei Rivers, because there are areas between the Kei and the Fish which are Native areas. We want to know from the Minister whether in terms of this clause—they are referred to as Bantu areas—he intends incorporating them. I have a letter here from the hon. the Minister written in 1955, in which he indicated that the Kei would be the definite boundary between the Transkei and the Ciskei. Does he intend to stand by that, or does he intend to encroach over that natural boundary, and how far he intends to meet the demands being made, because as stated by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, the matter is now open for negotiation. I would like to know from the Minister whether he intends to negotiate in regard to any change in the Eastern boundary of the Transkei, and whether he could not in terms of this Bill have defined that boundary as it should have been defined, because it is surveyed? We have every reason to be worried about this. Various chiefs have staked their claims. All of them want that land. They want that boundary extended to the Fish River. What is the Minister’s attitude? I think we have a right to know. Sir, there are these areas and I would like to know from the Minister now how far he intends to close this corridor that exists on the Eastern boundary of the Transkei by bringing it in, through encroachment, as he is now doing, from the western side? The Minister must realize that the whole of that area is occupied by farmers, and who, if it is going to be fixed by negotiation, must know whether they are going to be moved from that area or not, and if they are to stay there, they want the area defined as a White area. It is an extremely important matter to possibly the most progressive farmers in that area, and it is certainly one of the most highly productive areas in South Africa. I hope the Minister will give us some assurance as to what is to be done in that respect.

I understand that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) asked whether I would step into the breach for the Whites in the border areas. In the first place I want to tell him that there are no more released areas in that vicinity, either in East Giqualand, Maclear or Elliot. That does not apply here but I simply feel that when it is in the interests of White areas in the future for the White man to exchange some of that land for other land, then that can be done by means of this Bill and it will do us no harm. We can achieve far more by way of mutual arrangement and understanding than by opposing one another here on something that does not exist.

Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here with a clause which concerns the modification of the boundaries of the Transkei. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories has quoted the hon. the Prime Minister’s opinion in so far as future changes are concerned, and that is to the effect that it will be done by negotiation. The Mount Currie district has been mentioned. The position is that as far as Black spots in White areas are concerned, they must be gradually eliminated, because they ought not to be there, and that applies even to large Black spots in White areas. Here we have the converse position, when one deals with Mount Currie. There you have a large White spot in a Black area surrounded by Black areas. If any changes are to be made in the boundaries by way of negotiation, I would be most interested to hear from the Minister what possible justification he will have if there is a demand from the Transkeian Government for that large White spot to be included in the Transkeian Territory. He will be faced with a position where it is his own policy to eliminate such areas if they are Black spots in a White area, and that will be used as a precedent whereby the demand will be made for just such a White area to be included in the Black Transkeian area. I am sure the House will be most interested to know what justification the Minister will have for refusing such a request, and exactly how these negotiations will be carried out which, according to the hon. the Prime Minister, is the way in which this particular clause will be implemented.

A number of reasonable questions have been asked. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) asked what action we were going to take because claims have already been made by certain people in the Transkei to certain areas. I want to make it very clear that our policy is also based on the consolidation of Bantu areas. That is one aspect of our policy and everything possible will be done to consolidate the Bantu areas. But at the same time I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the Prime Minister and I have told the leaders of the Transkei quite clearly that their land is the land laid down in terms of Proclamation No. 180 of 1956, Section 2, and they are quite satisfied with that. But at the same time we have laid down the principle that provision must be made in the case of consolidation—the principle is contained in the Act and they accepted it—that this sort of thing can only take place and that the boundaries as they now stand can only be changed with the consent of the legislative council of the Transkei and the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. In other words, the House of Assembly and the Senate have to agree so that hon. members will always have every opportunity to keep an eye on these matters. But, as the hon. the Prime Minister said, there is a process of consultation. We may perhaps find in the future that we have a group of White people in an area and those people want to make a change; they say that they want that area to be included in the Transkei and the people of the Transkei also say that they are quite prepared to give up some other piece of land. These arrangements can always be made and there is the necessary provision by means of which this is to be done. But in that case too hon. members also have the guarantee that it can only be done with the consent of this Parliament. I do not think that hon. members have any right to think that we will include Griqualand East. That simply cannot be done. There is only one way in which to do this and that is in terms of the law. So, that guarantee has been inserted to the satisfaction of the people in the Transkei. Even the attitude adopted by the official there was very clear. He made no promises to the people but explained the provisions of the statute to them very clearly. But they also had in mind that if certain areas could be incorporated by way of negotiation, it could be done under this provision.

The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) asked about boundaries in his area. We have no intention of making any changes there. Take the area between the Kei and the Fish Rivers. It is possible if those farmers want to exchange and the Bantu also want to exchange that such an exchange of land can take place.